ct_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the data source (crt.sh) and the output fields, but does not mention rate limits, result freshness, whether expired certificates are included, or pagination behavior. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided), but additional behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that start with the action ('Search') and quickly cover the resource, input, and output. There is no wasted wording or 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 is a straightforward read-only search with no output schema, but the description lists the return fields directly. It lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., empty results, wildcard behavior) but these are partly covered by parameter descriptions. For a simple search tool, the description is reasonably complete, though it could briefly state what the response format looks like.

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 100% coverage: each parameter (limit, domain, include_subdomains) has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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: searching Certificate Transparency logs via crt.sh for certificates issued for a domain. It specifies the resource (crt.sh), the action (search), and the scope (for a domain), and it lists the returned fields (issuer, validity dates, serial number, common name), distinguishing it from more specialized CT sibling tools like ct_cert_inventory or ct_expiry_monitor.

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 implies usage for searching CT logs but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over specialized siblings like ct_wildcard_audit or ct_monitor. It provides no alternatives or exclusions, though the context of searching certificates by domain is clear.

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