Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, but the description add significant behavioral context: it performs a round-trip to a public URL, returns specific diagnostics (role, port, version, elapsed time), and interprets failure modes. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide, and does not contradict 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 two sentences: first explains what it does and what it returns, second gives usage context. It is front-loaded with action, every detail is relevant, and no words are wasted. It is concise yet informative.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It even explains how to interpret the output ('distinguishing bridge never came up from extension not connected from www.angi.com-side problem'). No gaps remain for such a simple tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the fixed URL used (/robots.txt), which is not a parameter but explains the tool's input implicitly. Without parameters, no further parameter semantics are 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 verb ('round-trips'), specific resource ('small public www.angi.com URL /robots.txt'), and purpose (diagnostics for fetchproxy bridge). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools by being a healthcheck/diagnostic tool, not a data-fetching tool. The conditional 'Call this when a real tool fails' further clarifies its purpose.

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 says when to use: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This gives a clear trigger condition. It also adds 'Read-only, no auth required,' which indicates it's safe to try. No alternative tools are relevant, but the conditional usage is explicit.

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