check_infrastructure_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true. The description adds specific context about the scope (which infrastructure components are covered) and the nature of the output (health report with statuses and recommendations), which supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 efficiently organized: purpose statement first, clear usage callout, alternative named, return description, and an example. Every sentence adds value and the structure is scannable.

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 low complexity (no parameters, output schema available, read-only annotation), the description provides all necessary context: what it checks, return content, and use case. There is no missing information that would hinder correct tool selection or invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4 per the rubric. The example invocation confirms no arguments are needed, and no additional parameter explanation is necessary or possible.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check the health of all DDI infrastructure components' and enumerates exact component types (HA groups, DHCP hosts, DNS zones, DNS views, IP spaces). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting alternatives for capacity and security.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'USE THIS for operational health monitoring and alerting.' It also names alternatives for capacity planning (get_ip_utilization) and security health (assess_security_posture), covering both when to use and when not to use.

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