domain_fetch_ssl_certificate_chain

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

No annotations provided, but description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, no side effects, idempotent. Also discloses limitations (no IP/wildcard), source, cache, and includes a feedback mechanism for gaps.

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?

Description is well-structured with each sentence serving a purpose, though slightly long due to feedback instruction. Still efficient and front-loaded.

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 single parameter, no nested objects, and presence of output schema, the description covers all aspects: purpose, usage, limitations, source, cache, feedback. No gaps remain.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds full semantics: 'Domain name without protocol e.g. github.com. Required. Does not support IP addresses or wildcard domains.' This compensates completely.

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 fetches SSL certificate history for a domain from Certificate Transparency logs, a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool domain_fetch_domain_rdap by noting that tool is for registration data, not certificate data.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (detect unexpected issuance, audit history) and when not (use domain_fetch_domain_rdap for registration data). Also mentions verified source (crt.sh) and 4-hour cache.

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