Verify this server can reach its upstream

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: it returns bridge role/port/version, extension-link state, elapsed time, credential source, and plain-English failure hints. It also clarifies that the bridge path needs no auth and that the server-side path never returns the credential itself.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the two diagnostic modes are clearly separated, but the description is dense and repeats phrases such as “read-only” and the upstream domain multiple times. It is mostly justified by the complexity, though it could be trimmed.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining what diagnostics are returned for both paths, including failure classifications and credential-handling behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool’s output and limits.

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 input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the call needs no parameters. The schema is empty and fully consistent with that behavior.

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 states a specific diagnostic purpose: report which hop is broken when a real tool fails, and it clearly distinguishes this health check from the sibling data tools. It also explains the two diagnostic paths the server may use.

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 explicitly sets the usage context as troubleshooting after a real tool failure, and notes that the path is selected automatically based on how this server is actually operating. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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