ssl_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact return fields, default port, cost ($0.009 USDC per call), and p99 latency (800ms). Cost and latency are unusually valuable behavioral signals. It does not mention auth/payment mechanics or error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose, then return fields, then operational metadata (cost, latency). Every sentence carries information and there is no filler. Slightly dense but well organized.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the return values (valid, days_remaining, issuer, validity dates, SANs, fingerprint, protocol). Combined with usage, cost, latency, and port defaults, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool.

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%, so both domain and port are already documented in the schema (including the default 443 and the 'no https://' caveat). The description's 'Default port 443' merely restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect SSL/TLS certificate for any domain.' An agent immediately knows this validates certificates, distinguishing it from sibling domain tools like whois or domain_check. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with siblings, so it stops 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?

Provides clear use contexts: 'certificate expiry monitoring, security audits, or HTTPS verification.' This tells the agent when to reach for it. It lacks any exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., vs. domain_check or accessibility_check), so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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