check_ssl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful transparency by specifying what is returned, which is especially valuable because no output schema exists. It does not disclose potential network behavior or failure modes, but the read-only annotation reduces that burden.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and visible outputs with no filler. Every phrase adds useful information.

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 simple: one required domain parameter and an optional port. The description covers the main return values and the annotation covers the read-only nature. It could mention behavior on unreachable domains or TLS errors, but that is a minor gap for a straightforward diagnostic tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `domain` and `port` are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema carries the full burden.

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 has a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('SSL/TLS certificate of a domain'), and enumerates the key outputs returned (issuer, validity dates, expiry countdown, protocol version, cipher suite, certificate chain). This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like dns_lookup, whois_lookup, and check_headers.

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 use case is implied: if you need certificate details for a domain, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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