Certificate transparency search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it queries crt.sh and returns specific data types, which is useful. It does not disclose potential rate limits, pagination, or response formatting, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that leads with the most important outputs (hostnames and email addresses) and includes the source (crt.sh) without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (hostnames and emails) and the source. It doesn't describe the optional include_expired parameter, but that is fully covered in the schema. The description is effectively complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters ('domain' and 'include_expired') are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning 'for a domain', which aligns with the required parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the meaning.

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 a specific action (searching certificate transparency logs) and resource (TLS certificates for a domain), and specifies the exact outputs: host names and email addresses. It also differentiates from sibling subdomain tools by emphasizing 'often unlisted subdomains' and the crt.sh source, helping an agent distinguish it from subfinder_subdomain_search.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would use this tool when it needs hostnames or email addresses from certificate transparency logs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like subfinder_subdomain_search or theharvester_domain_search, nor any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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