certificate_transparency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses passivity/no target contact, warns that results routinely include out-of-scope hostnames flagged via `in_scope` that other tools will refuse, and states cost (1 quota unit) and latency (5-30s, crt.sh often slow). These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, each earning its place: purpose, passive nature, result caveat, and cost/timing. Front-loaded with what it does before the operational caveats.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still flags the `in_scope` field because it is decision-critical. Cost, latency, and scope-leak caveats round out everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 limit, domain, and include_expired are already documented, and the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides. The one useful addition, that the domain must be in scope, overlaps with the schema's own 'Domain name in scope' text. Baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search public certificate transparency logs (crt.sh) for certificates issued to a domain'), plus the data source, which cleanly separates it from siblings like tls_certificate_info that inspect a live endpoint. An agent knows exactly what class of data comes back.

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?

Gives a clear selection condition ('Passive: the target is not contacted') that implies when this is preferable to active probing tools such as tls_certificate_info or check_ports. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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