SSL/TLS certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: results frequently expose SANs that are useful for discovery, and expired certificates are often historically interesting. This adds value without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most valuable usage tip. Every word 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 tool with one required parameter, four optional ones, and full schema descriptions, the description covers the core purpose, a key use-case insight, and a parameter recommendation. Return format and pagination are already explained in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description goes further by advising to pass status='all' for historical hostname hunting, which directly aids parameter selection and adds meaning beyond the schema's generic enum description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List SSL/TLS certificates issued for a hostname') and immediately distinguishes its value from sibling tools by highlighting SANs as a discovery vector beyond subdomain enumeration. No ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

Provides clear context on when the tool is valuable (revealing hostnames subdomain enumeration misses) and hints at the historical use case with expired certificates. Does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to prefer this tool over subdomain enumeration.

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