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 that it makes a real round-trip, requires no auth, and reports hop-level failure categories (bridge never came up vs extension not connected vs remote-side problem). This is useful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense paragraph, but each clause earns its place by naming a diagnostic field or the invocation condition. It front-loads the action and output before the usage guidance.

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?

For a no-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the returned diagnostics and the failure classes it can distinguish. Combined with the annotations and sibling list, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool; no further documentation is needed.

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 concrete action (round-trips a public /graphql URL through the fetchproxy bridge) and the output (diagnostics about role, port, version, link, latency, and a plain-English fault hint). This distinguishes it sharply from the listing/search siblings, which are data-retrieval tools rather than infrastructure diagnostics.

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." That tells an agent exactly when to invoke it and frames it as a diagnostic fallback, separate from normal Hemnet lookups.

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