Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: no auth required, a real network round-trip through the bridge, and the three failure categories it distinguishes. This is meaningful supplementary disclosure with no contradiction.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Round-trips a small public... URL') before listing the diagnostic outputs and usage trigger. Every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: bridge role, port, version, extension link state, elapsed time, and a plain-English failure hint. It also covers when to use the tool and the absence of auth requirements, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing about parameters needs to be explained in the description; the empty schema is complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('round-trips') with a concrete public URL, then enumerates exactly what diagnostics it returns (role, port, version, extension link, elapsed time, hint). This clearly identifies the tool as the fetchproxy healthcheck and sets it apart from the sibling Eventbrite data tools.

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 alternatives or when-not conditions, but the failure-diagnosis framing is enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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