Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the external round-trip behavior, the exact diagnostic fields returned, and how to interpret failure classes ('bridge never came up', 'extension not connected', 'real www.homes.com-side problem'). It also notes 'Read-only, no auth required,' which adds operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior, then lists the returned diagnostics in a compact, scannable sequence. Each clause earns its place, and the when-to-use guidance is a single clear sentence.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent gets back. It names all diagnostic components and the meaning of the hint, making the tool callable without missing information.

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 input schema is empty, so schema coverage is complete. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; the description has no parameter semantics to add.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Round-trips a small public www.homes.com URL ... through the fetchproxy bridge') and a concrete deliverable ('returns diagnostics'). It clearly differentiates this healthcheck tool from the property-data sibling tools, which are all about retrieving home information.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but no sibling serves a similar diagnostic role, so the guidance is sufficient.

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