SSL certificates and expiry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: results are ordered by soonest expiry, and a negative days_remaining signals an already-expired certificate. It does not mention pagination behavior or how many hosts are scanned, 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then the filter, then the edge-case semantics. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for return semantics, and it does explain ordering and the days_remaining sign convention. It remains silent on result volume and pagination expectations and on how it relates to the AutoSSL diagnostics tool, leaving a small gap for a 4-parameter listing 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 description coverage is 100%, so user, limit, offset and expiring_within_days are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces expiring_within_days as the 'needs attention' filter and clarifies the meaning of the returned days_remaining field, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('List the SSL certificate installed on each virtual host') and adds the sort order, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, whm_autossl_problems, which also concerns certificate problems, 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?

The only usage guidance is 'Use expiring_within_days to find certificates that need attention', which explains one parameter's purpose rather than when to pick this tool over whm_autossl_problems. Usage is implied by the resource name but no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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