Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the full set of diagnostic outputs (bridge role, port, version, extension link state, elapsed time, hint) and the failure categories it distinguishes. It also explicitly states 'Read-only, no auth required,' giving agents confidence about side effects and access.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: the mechanism, the exact diagnostics returned, the failure-mode hint, the invocation condition, and the safety note. It front-loads the core behavior and avoids filler.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates fully by enumerating the return fields and their possible values, and by explaining how to interpret the result. An agent has enough information to decide when to call this tool and what the response will tell it.

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% because the schema is empty. The description reasonably does not discuss parameters; per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.

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 names a specific verb ('Round-trips'), a precise resource (public www.compass.com URL through the fetchproxy bridge), and a concrete deliverable (diagnostics). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling property-lookup tools by framing itself as an end-to-end healthcheck rather than a data query.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' It does not name sibling alternatives, but the contrast with the domain-specific sibling tools is clear from the diagnostic framing.

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