tools_crtsh

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral aspects. It mentions passivity and the effect of include_expired, but omits potential issues like rate limits, API errors, result volume, or that it queries an external service. These gaps hinder an agent's understanding of risks and performance.

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 concise, well-structured with Args and an example, and every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (passive enumeration, 2 params, with output schema), the description provides necessary usage context and parameter behavior. The output schema covers return values, so the description is mostly complete, though it could note that results may include JSON with certificate data.

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%, so the description must supply parameter semantics. It explains domain with an example and describes include_expired's default and effect, adding clear value beyond the raw schema.

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 it queries crt.sh for passive subdomain enumeration, specifying the resource and technique. While it differentiates from active tools by mentioning passivity, it could more explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tools_amass or tools_subfinder, which also enumerate subdomains.

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 advises using this tool for passive reconnaissance and notes it sends no traffic, providing context for stealthy use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., when active scans are acceptable) and does not mention alternatives among siblings.

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