check_api_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the three service clients checked, the diagnostic purpose (API key validation, connectivity), and that response times are returned. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-organized with clear sections (purpose, usage, returns, example). It is slightly repetitive in phrases like 'Verify connectivity' and 'verify the MCP server can reach Infoblox,' but overall it is appropriately sized 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema exists, annotations cover safety), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and output. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly, especially with the explicit alternative.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the scope (all three service clients) even though there are no parameters to explain.

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 verifies Infoblox API connectivity for three specific service clients (DDI, Insights, ATCFW). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_infrastructure_health, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS to diagnose connection issues, check if API keys are valid, or verify the MCP server can reach Infoblox.' It also names the alternative tool for infrastructure health, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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