ssl_check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: how invalid certs are handled (returning findings instead of failures), meaning of grades D/F, and rate limits (100/hr Free, 1000/hr Pro). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately concise, packing essential information into a few sentences. It front-loads key outputs and includes usage guidance and behavior notes, but could be slightly tighter without losing substance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides comprehensive coverage: tool purpose, output details, error handling, rate limits, and sibling differentiation. Given the availability of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description is complete enough for effective tool selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully describes the sole parameter 'domain' with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'SSL/TLS certificate', lists specific attributes (grade, protocol, cipher, etc.), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'audit_domain' by noting its narrower scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('audit certificate validity and detect expiring certs') and provides an alternative ('for full domain audit use audit_domain'), offering clear guidance on tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.