Verify credentials and upstream reachability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it makes one authenticated request, reports round-trip time, and explicitly states it never returns the credential. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 slightly verbose with an awkward phrase ('a your Infinite Campus portal-side problem'), but every sentence contributes information: what it does, what it reports, read-only nature, and when to call. It is front-loaded with the core behavior.

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, the description adequately describes what is reported: credential source, acceptance, round-trip time, and a hint. It covers the key aspects an agent needs to interpret the tool's output. Some details like error handling are not mentioned, but they are less critical for a healthcheck.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the operation rather than parameters, so no further explanation is needed.

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 tool's function: it resolves the credential, makes one authenticated request, and reports on credential source, acceptance, round-trip time, and a plain-English hint. It is distinct from sibling tools that list or retrieve specific data (e.g., ic_list_students, ic_get_schedule).

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 instructs when to use: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This provides clear context and differentiates from siblings, which are for data retrieval.

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