ssl_check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds important behavioral details: how invalid certs are handled (returned as findings with valid=false and validation_errors instead of failures), and defines grade meanings (D vs F). 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers key aspects (output, error handling, grade definitions, rate limits, sibling reference) without unnecessary fluff. Could be slightly more concise, but effective.

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 covers output fields, error handling, grade meanings, rate limits, and distinguishes from sibling tool. Despite complexity (SSL/TLS analysis), it provides sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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% with a single parameter 'domain' that already includes an example in its description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 tool's function: 'Analyze SSL/TLS certificate' and lists specific outputs (grade, protocol, cipher, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling 'audit_domain' by specifying that this tool is for certificate validity and expiry detection.

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?

The description says 'Use to audit certificate validity and detect expiring certs; for full domain audit use audit_domain,' providing explicit guidance on when to use and an alternative. It also includes rate limits (Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr), offering context for usage constraints.

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