Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context beyond these: it states no auth required, read-only explicitly, and details the diagnostics returned (role, port, version, extension link, elapsed time, and a hint distinguishing failure modes). This adds meaningful behavioral transparency without contradicting 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the action and then lists the diagnostics. Every sentence contributes useful information, but it is slightly verbose. It could be condensed without losing meaning, but it is still concise and logically ordered.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns (the diagnostics list). It even distinguishes failure modes. There is nothing an agent needs to call it correctly that is missing.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 a specific action (round-trips a small public www.angi.com URL through the fetchproxy bridge) and its purpose (returns diagnostics). It differentiates from all sibling tools, which are all about reviews, pros, trades, etc., so there is no confusion. The verb 'round-trips' and resource 'fetchproxy bridge' are explicit.

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 when to use it: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' It also explains what it does in that context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear and distinct from siblings. A score of 4 is appropriate.

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