ssl_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses SSRF protection (refusing private/loopback/link-local/cloud-metadata IPs) and a 5s connect timeout, which are key behavioral traits for a network tool. It also describes the output fields, though it doesn't specify failure behavior.

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 concise: three sentences covering action, return fields, use case, and safety/timeout. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields. It includes security and timeout context, which is important for network operations. It doesn't mention error handling, but the provided info is sufficient for basic use.

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 50% (only domain has a description, port has constraints but no description). The description uses {domain}:{port} placeholders but doesn't elaborate on port defaults or validation. It adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Connect to {domain}:{port} over TLS') and the resource (SSL/TLS certificate), listing detailed return fields. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like dns_lookup or url_metadata by focusing on certificate 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 description explicitly states when to use it ('verifying a domain has HTTPS, the cert is not expired, and the chain is properly configured'), giving clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the use cases are specific enough.

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