Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it states no auth is required, explains that it distinguishes 'bridge never came up' from 'extension not connected' from 'real book.easytable.com-side problem,' and lists the returned diagnostic fields. This gives an agent a rich behavioral picture without conflicting with 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?

Two compact sentences carry the operation, outputs, read-only/no-auth facts, and the exact failure-directed use case. No filler or repeated schema details.

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 supplies the return semantics in plain language and disambiguates failure categories. For a zero-parameter healthcheck tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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 parameterschers, so the schema needs no explanation. The baseline of 4 applies; the description adds context about what the tool probes, which compensates for the absence of any input contract.

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 concrete resource ('/robots.txt'), and the exact diagnostic outputs (role, port, version, link state, timing, hint). It clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from the booking/list siblings.

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?

It explicitly says when to call it: 'when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' It does not name a non-diagnostic alternative, but none of the siblings serve this purpose, so the guidance is clear enough.

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