ssl_check

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

Discloses important behavioral details: invalid certs are reported via valid=false + validation_errors[] rather than failures, and explains grading nuances (D vs F). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true but the description adds context beyond annotations without 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?

The description is a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then details behavioral traits, use case, rate limits, and return fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has only one parameter (fully covered by schema), an output schema, and the description covers edge cases, return fields, and rate limits. It provides all necessary information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema already explains the domain field. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 tool analyzes SSL/TLS certificates, listing specific outputs like grade, protocol, cipher suite, etc. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool audit_domain by noting that for a full domain audit one should use audit_domain.

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 'Use to audit certificate validity and detect expiring certs; for full domain audit use audit_domain.' This gives a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use, with a direct alternative. Also includes rate limit information.

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