Verify the ContextMint Bridge connection end-to-end

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, and the description confirms read-only/no-auth. Beyond that it discloses what the round-trip actually probes and enumerates the failure classes the hint distinguishes (bridge never came up vs extension not connected vs capability unavailable vs site-side problem), which is real behavioral value the annotations don't carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the mechanism, then the returned fields, then the call condition. The middle sentence is dense with enumerations, but every item is a distinct diagnostic the agent needs, so little is wasted. Slightly heavy for a single read-only probe.

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 must carry the return contract, and it does — it names each diagnostic field and the categories of hint returned. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter commentary because there is nothing to parameterize — the URL and target are fixed internally.

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?

States a specific action (round-trips /robots.txt through the ContextMint Bridge) and the exact output (bridge role, port, version, link state, elapsed time, hint). This is unmistakably a connectivity diagnostic, cleanly separable from the booking/reservation siblings that share the opentable_ prefix.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't spell out when NOT to use it (e.g., for routine preflight checks), but no sibling competes for this role.

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