Check HTTPS / SSL

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral details by defining what constitutes the check (valid certificate and 301 redirect), which goes beyond the generic tool name. It does not mention response format or edge cases, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that delivers all necessary information without any fluff. It is concise and front-loaded with the core behavior.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the check. The return value is not explicitly stated, but in the context of sibling check tools, 'verify' implies a pass/fail result, making it reasonably complete.

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 input schema fully describes the url parameter with an example and constraints, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('verify') and two concrete checks: serving https:// with a valid certificate and http:// 301 redirecting to https://. This strongly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_url_structure or check_caching.

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 context for use is clear: when you need to confirm HTTPS enforcement and proper redirect behavior. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the specialized scope is evident from the description and sibling names, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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