Get website SSL status

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds substantial behavioral context. It defines every possible status value (installing, active, failed, expired, not_installed), explains what each means, and documents the 404 behavior for missing websites or domains. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently defines all statuses in a structured way. The cross-reference to 'List website processes' and the 404 note are useful. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the length is justified given the number of possible states.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return semantics, which it does thoroughly: it identifies the returned fields and enumerates all possible statuses with meanings. Combined with the read-only annotations and clear parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond confirming the domain belongs to an Agency Plan website, so it meets the baseline but provides no significant additional semantic value.

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 ('Returns') and a precise resource ('SSL state of one domain of an Agency Plan website'), then enumerates exactly what is included. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hosting_getSSLStatusV1 by scoping it to Agency Plan websites and per-domain granularity.

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 context is clear: this tool reads SSL state for a single domain on an Agency Plan website. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the Agency Plan and domain-specific scope strongly imply the intended use case, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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