MCP Web Scrape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does (check validity and security details) but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: what 'validity' means (expiration dates, issuer trust), what 'security details' include (cipher strength, protocol versions), whether it performs active network requests, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context about what the tool returns and how it behaves. For a tool that checks SSL certificates - which involves network operations, security assessments, and potentially complex return data - the current description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'validity' or 'security details,' nor does it describe the output format or any behavioral constraints.

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 has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('url' and 'includeChain') well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Check SSL certificate validity and security details' - this specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('SSL certificate') with additional context about what aspects are examined (validity and security details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though SSL certificate checking is distinct from most listed siblings like content analysis or performance 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what problems it solves, or how it differs from potentially related tools like 'check_url_status' or 'scan_vulnerabilities' among the siblings.

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