mcp-infoblox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions regex search behavior for the name parameter, which is valuable. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence establishes the core purpose and scope, while the second provides important behavioral context about regex searching. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 (7 parameters, search functionality) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and one behavioral aspect (regex search), but doesn't address return format, error conditions, or important operational constraints. For a search tool without output schema, more guidance on results would be helpful.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by clarifying that 'Name search uses regex by default' and listing supported record types, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Search for DNS records in Infoblox' with specific record types listed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_all_records_in_zone' by emphasizing search functionality, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'global_search' or 'search_ip_addresses' which are also search-related tools.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'Name search uses regex by default' and listing supported record types, which suggests when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_all_records_in_zone' or 'search_ip_addresses', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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