Legacy: tls → domain.tls

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

Despite annotations already indicating read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description contributes useful behavioral context by flagging the tool as legacy and exposed via GET /v1/tls. It adds deprecation awareness without contradicting the annotations.

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 very compact: two short sentences that first establish the legacy alias and then give the preferred replacement. There is no filler or redundancy, making it efficient and well structured.

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 one-parameter legacy alias with robust annotations, the description is adequate but not fully contained. It tells the agent the alias and preferred tool, but never mentions the returned content or behavior beyond 'GET /v1/tls', relying on domain.tls for semantics and on the absence of an output schema to imagine the result shape.

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 parameter 'domain' is fully described in the input schema with format details and an example, giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the schema carries the entire burden, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 states the tool is a legacy alias for domain.tls and identifies the underlying GET /v1/tls endpoint, but it does not say what the tool actually retrieves or produces. The action is only implied via the alias, so the purpose is clear as a compatibility shim but not as a functional operation.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer domain.tls' and names the direct alternative, giving an agent a clear directive to use domain.tls instead. It does not elaborate on specific conditional scenarios, but the precedence and alias nature are unambiguous.

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