peerglass_ct_logs

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), while the description adds valuable behavioral context absent from structured fields: it discloses the external data source (crt.sh), deduplication behavior, and the specific output fields returned (CN, CA, validity, SAN). The openWorldHint annotation is implicitly confirmed by the crt.sh reference.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: single-sentence purpose statement followed by use-case bullets and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—no tautology or redundancy with the tool name. Length is appropriate for the parameter complexity.

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 the presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description provides adequate completeness: it summarizes the return type (certificate table with CA summary) and covers all input parameters. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or crt.sh availability constraints, though not strictly required.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% (or near-zero), the Args section in the description provides essential semantic meaning for all three parameters: domain includes an example ('cloudflare.com'), limit explains constraints ('default 50, max 500'), and response_format clarifies the enum options. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource (TLS certificates via Certificate Transparency logs) and scope ('ever issued for a domain'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like peerglass_tls_inspect by emphasizing historical certificate transparency data versus real-time inspection.

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 'Useful for:' section provides four concrete scenarios (shadow IT discovery, CA auditing, incident forensics, rotation verification) that clearly signal when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or direct comparisons to siblings like peerglass_tls_inspect or peerglass_dns_enumerate.

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