netintel_ssl_cert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: one TLS handshake, a sub-2-second latency expectation, and the exact response contents despite there being no output schema. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error/timeout behavior for unreachable hosts, which keeps it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and returned fields, followed by cost/latency and the sibling-tier routing. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates the return fields and the routing alternative. The one notable gap is the undocumented port parameter, which an agent might need for non-443 endpoints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only does so partially. 'Any domain' loosely conveys acceptable input for the domain field, but the port parameter is never mentioned and has no schema description, leaving it entirely undocumented.

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+resource (SSL certificate check for any domain) and enumerates the concrete data returned (issuer, subject, SANs, validity dates, expiry days, expired/self-signed flags, TLS version, chain length). It also explicitly positions itself against the sibling netintel_ssl_analyze, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 closing phrase 'the light, cheap tier under netintel_ssl_analyze (full analysis, grading)' names the alternative and the axis on which to choose. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when X, use that when Y' instruction, but the routing condition (cheap/quick vs. full analysis/grading) is clearly inferable.

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