ct_wildcard_audit

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

The description discloses the tool's output behavior—number of wildcards, issuing CAs, date ranges, and flags for multiple CAs—which is helpful given no annotations. It implies a read-only audit, though it doesn't explicitly state safety guarantees.

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 concise sentences with no fluff, front-loading the main action and then detailing outputs.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and reported fields. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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 single 'domain' parameter is fully described in the schema with an example, so the tool description adds no extra param semantics. Baseline 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 identifies the tool as auditing CT logs for wildcard certificates and lists specific output elements (count, CAs, date ranges, flagging). This distinguishes it from general CT search tools like ct_search.

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 establishes a clear use case: auditing wildcard certificates in CT logs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is specific enough for an agent to differentiate from sibling tools.

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