SSL Check

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral details: how invalid certs are handled (returns valid=false+validation_errors, not endpoint failures), grade definitions, and rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro). No contradiction.

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?

Description is fairly long but each sentence adds value, front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise but still effective. No waste.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (indicated), description covers key aspects: purpose, behavior on invalid certs, grade definitions, rate limits, and return fields. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

Only one parameter (domain) with 100% schema coverage. Description does not add meaning beyond schema, which is sufficient. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes SSL/TLS certificates and lists specific aspects (grade, protocol, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling audit_domain with 'for full domain audit use audit_domain', showing specific verb+resource+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: 'Use to audit certificate validity and detect expiring certs' and provides an alternative: 'for full domain audit use audit_domain'. Clear usage context and exclusion.

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