mcp-infoblox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite (use get_networks first) but doesn't describe what 'next available' means algorithmically, whether results are deterministic, if there are rate limits, or what happens when no IPs are available. For a tool that allocates resources, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity (allocating IP addresses), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and prerequisite but lacks details about return format, error conditions, or behavioral characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't contradict it either. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get the next available IP address(es)') and resource ('from a network'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_ip_addresses' or 'get_network_details', but the specific focus on 'next available' provides some distinction.

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 explicitly states 'Use get_networks first to find the network reference,' providing clear prerequisite guidance. It tells the agent when to use this tool (after obtaining a network reference) and implies it's for retrieving available IPs rather than searching or managing existing ones.

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