Check certificate expiry for several hosts

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, yet the description adds real value beyond them: the soonest-expiring-first result ordering and the prompt-injection warning that probed site text is untrusted data. The standalone "Read-only." sentence is redundant with readOnlyHint=true but not contradictory.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, scope, and ordering in the first sentence, followed by the use case and security caveat. Tight overall, though the one-word "Read-only." sentence duplicates the annotation and is mild waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right work by stating the return ordering and the 10-host batch limit, and it flags untrusted input. It doesn't mention error behavior for unreachable hosts or partial failures, which a batch probe tool could usefully note.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema (port defaults, implicit TLS, mail ports, host format). The description only restates the 10-host cap already expressed by maxItems, adding no syntax or semantics the schema lacks.

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 (checks certificate expiry) plus scope (up to 10 hosts) and output ordering (soonest-expiring first). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tls_inspect, which plausibly overlaps, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Ideal for a quick 'which of my domains need renewal?' sweep" gives a concrete use context. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer tls_inspect), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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