tls

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 the method (crt.sh + HTTPS reachability), which is useful behavioral context, and hints at a read-only analytics use case. However, it does not mention potential side effects (likely none), error behavior for invalid domains, rate limits, or whether external network calls may fail. The disclosure is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and output, with no wasted words. Every clause adds value: the source, the output fields, and the usage caveat are all packed efficiently.

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 one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the context for using it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify the exact format of 'flags' or the reachability result, but that's not critical for the agent to call the tool, so a 4 is justified.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, so the description does not need to elaborate beyond the schema. It adds no additional meaning to the parameter itself, only describing the tool's overall method. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 verb (summarize) and resource (TLS/CT certificate), and enumerates the specific outputs (issuer, validity window, flags). It also names the underlying source (54ch10, crt.sh + HTTPS reachability), which distinguishes it from siblings like whois or dns without needing to reference them explicitly.

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 phrase 'Analytics-only — not clearance' gives partial context about intended use (analytics, not security clearance checks), but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this over alternatives like fetch or whois, nor does it mention exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than stated, so it falls short of a clear usage guideline.

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