Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it performs a real network round-trip, reports bridge role/port/version, link state, latency, and distinguishes failure modes. It also explicitly states 'Read-only, no auth required,' which directly helps an agent decide to invoke it safely.

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: it states the action, the exact endpoint, the full list of returned diagnostics, the interpretation hint, and the trigger condition. The usage guidance is placed at the end after the behavior, which is logical for a diagnostic tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive, and it does so thoroughly: role, port, version, extension link status, elapsed time, and a plain-English failure-mode hint. It also explains the three possible failure interpretations, making the response actionable. Nothing critical is missing for a zero-parameter health-check tool.

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 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so parameter documentation is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; it instead focuses on the output diagnostics, which is the right priority for a parameterless tool.

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') and a concrete resource ('a small public www.hemnet.se URL (/graphql) through the fetchproxy bridge'), then enumerates exactly what diagnostics are returned. It clearly differentiates this tool from the data-fetching siblings by framing it as a bridge health check rather than a listing/search operation.

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 explicitly states when to call it: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This gives the agent a clear trigger condition and makes the diagnostic intent obvious. No alternatives are named, but none are needed because no sibling provides this health-check function.

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