Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations by stating 'Read-only, no auth required' and detailing what is returned: role, port, version, extension link state, elapsed time, and a plain-English failure hint. It also discloses the exact behavior of round-tripping a specific URL through the bridge, which is valuable operational context.

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 front-loaded with the action and immediately explains the tool's purpose, then lists the key diagnostic outputs. Every sentence adds useful information, and the closing usage directive is concise but highly actionable.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: role, port, version, link state, elapsed time, and failure classification. Combined with the explicit when-to-use guidance and auth/read-only disclosure, nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document; the baseline is 4. The description still clarifies the fixed input it uses (a small public /graphql URL), which is the only parameter-like detail relevant to this tool.

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 ('round-trips') and resource (the fetchproxy bridge via a small public www.booli.se URL), then enumerates exactly what diagnostics are returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-access tools like booli_search_listings and booli_get_listing.

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 says to call this 'when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also implicitly separates this diagnostic role from the sibling search/listing tools, which are for normal data access.

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