ssl_expiry_check

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuine result behavior on top: soonest-first ordering and the edge case that 'Expired certs are included, with negative days remaining.' This goes beyond what the annotations disclose, though it stops short of covering pagination or rate limits, which are likely non-issues for a filtered read tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return contract, and sibling routing. The '[READ]' prefix and 'soonest first' flag are efficient front-loaded signals with zero filler.

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-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the return fields, ordering, default behavior, edge case (expired certs), and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: the schema already documents 'days' with a description and default of 30. The tool description repeats the default ('within N days (default 30)') but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('SSL certificates expire within N days'), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings: 'Use this instead of ssl_list when you only want certificates near expiry.' An agent can tell this apart from the 28 sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 explicitly names the alternative (ssl_list) and gives the selection condition ('when you only want certificates near expiry'), which implies the inverse condition for the sibling. This is exactly the explicit when/alternative guidance the rubric rewards.

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