tools_crtsh

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions nothing about whether the tool makes network requests, reads certificate data, returns output, or has any side effects. The agent is left completely in the dark about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 only three words, which is concise but drastically under-specified. It lacks essential information and reads more like a placeholder than a useful tool description. Every sentence in a description should earn its place, but here even the single sentence is insufficient.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter explanations, the description is far from complete. It does not cover what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any operational context. The complexity may be low, but the description does not meet even the minimum viable standard for a tool with two parameters.

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 defines 'domain' and 'target' as optional string parameters with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description fails to explain what these parameters mean or how they should be populated. This is a critical omission for a tool with any parameters at all.

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 'Query crt.sh.' names a specific external service and a generic action, but it does not clarify what querying crt.sh means (e.g., certificate transparency lookup, domain search, etc.). It lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from siblings like tools_subfinder or tools_assetfinder, which also perform recon queries.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description provides no context to help an agent decide whether this is the right tool.

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