Domain TLS/CT

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: it discloses external data sources (crt.sh + probe), the summarized nature of the output, and the analytics-only scope. No contradiction exists.

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 brief, front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose, and each clause adds value: what it returns, how it gets it, when to call it, and its analytics nature. No filler or 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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description gives enough context: the input domain, expected output areas, data sources, and invocation timing. There is no output schema, but the description names the key result dimensions. It could mention error or latency behavior, but that is not essential for this 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?

The single domain parameter is fully described in the schema with a clear example. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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 identifies the resource (TLS/CT) and the action ('summarize'), listing the specific outputs (issuer, validity, HTTPS reachability) and data sources (crt.sh + probe). It does not explicitly distinguish the domain.tls tool from the sibling 'tls' tool, so it loses the last point.

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?

It gives explicit situational guidance: call after url.open/domain.dns when issuer/validity matters. It also marks the tool as analytics-only STATE. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or contrast it with an alternative sibling.

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