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 discloses no-auth requirements, a fixed public URL, diagnostic fields including the bridge role and link state, and a hint that differentiates failure modes. This fully describes observable behavior without contradicting the 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?

A single dense sentence carries a lot of diagnostic detail and could be split for readability, but every clause earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating exactly what diagnostics are returned and how to interpret them. A no-parameter diagnostic tool needs little else for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline 4 applies; the description confirms the fixed round-trip target (/robots.txt), leaving no ambiguity about inputs.

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 opens with a concrete action ('Round-trips a small public www.etix.com URL') and identifies the resource and diagnostic purpose. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling content tools by framing it as a bridge health check rather than a data lookup.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' It does not name alternative tools or spell out when not to use it, but the diagnostic context is unambiguous.

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