Inspect an SSL certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing that it opens a live network connection to the host and evaluates chain trust and hostname match, which is more than the annotations convey. It does not mention timeouts, connectivity failure behavior, or caching semantics beyond what the 'fresh' parameter implies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that delivers the connection behavior first and the reported fields second, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema present, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world safety profile. The only gap is the absence of any usage or failure-mode context, which is minor for a straightforward inspection tool.

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 100%, so host, port (with enum) and fresh are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('connects... and reports') and resource ('TLS certificate'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: issuer, subject, validity dates, days remaining, trust, name match, protocol and cipher. It is unmistakable against siblings like lookup_dns or lookup_whois, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over neighbors such as lookup_dns, lookup_whois, or check_email_domain, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. network reachability, need for open ports). Usage is only implied by the tool's subject matter.

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