Verify credentials and upstream reachability

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: one authenticated request, reporting of credential source, acceptance, round-trip time, and failure-mode hints, plus 'never returns the credential itself.' This fully discloses behavior.

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 detailed but every sentence adds value, covering behavior, output, usage trigger, and safety. It is slightly wordy and contains a minor grammatical artifact ('a your Infinite Campus portal-side problem'), but remains well-organized and front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it reports, when to use it, and its read-only nature. 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics; it describes what the tool does without any parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Resolves... makes... Reports') and a specific resource (Infinite Campus portal), and clearly describes a diagnostic health-check behavior rather than a generic operation. No sibling tools exist, so it does not need differentiation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke,' giving a concrete trigger condition. With no sibling tools, no alternative routing is needed.

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