check_certificate_transparency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context about using crt.sh with no key required, aligning with the safe, idempotent nature. No contradictions.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value: action, interpretation guidance, usage context.

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 lookup tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers what it does, when to use, how to interpret results, and relationship to a sibling. No gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% (though schema has descriptions for both parameters). The description does not add parameter details beyond what schema provides, so it meets baseline but doesn't compensate.

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 ('look up') and resource ('domain's SSL certificate history'), specifies the source ('crt.sh'), and distinguishes from sibling 'check_domain' by noting it complements RDAP age checks.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when you have a company/link domain and want infra age corroboration'), how to interpret results (fresh certs = phishing, long history = established), and references an alternative sibling ('Complements check_domain').

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