Get SSL status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it explains each possible status value (installing, waiting_for_retry, failed, expired, not_installed, active) and the meaning of last_error, plus the special case of free subdomains using a platform-managed certificate. This enriches the agent's understanding of the response semantics without contradicting 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core return information, then systematically explains the status values. It is not overly verbose, and each sentence contributes meaningful details about the output semantics. There is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

For a read-only status check, the description is quite complete. It lists the fields returned and thoroughly explains the meaning of each status, including edge cases like free subdomains and the 60-minute timeout for installation failures. Since the tool has no output schema, this description provides the agent with enough context to interpret the response and act on it appropriately.

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%, with both parameters (username, domain) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema covers the parameters, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to repeat them.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: 'Returns the SSL state of the website' and enumerates the exact fields returned (status, provider, lifetime flag, HTTPS redirect, expiration, last error). This is a specific verb+resource that clearly differentiates it from siblings like hosting_installSSLV1 or hosting_toggleHTTPSRedirectV1, which are mutation tools.

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 description makes it clear that this is a read-only status retrieval, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., installing or uninstalling SSL, toggling redirects). An agent can infer from the tool name and description that it is for checking status, but there is no explicit guidance or mention of alternatives, only the implicit context of the operation.

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