ssl_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Retrieve and validate') and lists the data returned, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any network behavior (e.g., that it makes a live connection to the domain), potential latency, or error conditions. For a read-only check this is acceptable, but it leaves some behavioral details implicit, warranting a mid-range score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The second sentence efficiently enumerates the return fields and use cases. There is zero redundancy or filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential information: what it does, what data it returns, and ideal usage scenarios. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it performs a live network check or how it handles unreachable domains, but these are minor gaps. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of returned fields.

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 has only one parameter, 'domain', which is fully described with an example ('example.com') and explanation. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Retrieve and validate the SSL/TLS certificate details for a domain' and enumerates the exact fields returned (issuer, validity period, fingerprints, SANs, etc.). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (whois_lookup, dns_lookup, domain_availability) because it targets certificate data specifically. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 includes an explicit 'Useful for checking certificate expiry, verifying the issuer, or auditing TLS configuration' clause, giving concrete scenarios. It does not, however, name the sibling tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., 'for DNS records use dns_lookup'). This is clear context without exclusions, aligning with a 4 rather than a 5.

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