Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description reinforces safety with 'Read-only, no auth required' and adds crucial behavioral context: it reveals the exact diagnostics returned (role, port, version, extension link state, elapsed time, and a distinguishing hint). This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing what the call exercises and how the output isolates failures, without any contradiction.

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 action, then lists the returned diagnostics in a compact, en-dash-separated series. The final two sentences tersely state 'Read-only, no auth required' and give a one-line invocation condition. Every phrase carries diagnostic value; none is fluff. Despite its length, it remains structured and readable.

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 a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent health check with no output schema, the description provides complete context: it describes the jest performed, the specific fields returned, and the interpretation hints. The agent will know exactly what it is calling, what output to expect, and when the call is appropriate. Nothing critical is missing.

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, so the input schema is trivially complete (describe coverage is 100%). The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed. Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and there is no gap to compensate.

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, action-oriented phrase: 'Round-trips a small public www.opentable.com URL (/robots.txt) through the fetchproxy bridge and returns diagnostics.' It names the resource, the operation, and explicitly enumerates the diagnostic fields. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all business operations (book, cancel, search, etc.) rather than a bridge health check.

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 states exactly when to call it: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This is an explicit trigger condition. It also implies when not to use it (for normal data operations), and since none of the siblings are diagnostic tools, no alternatives need be named. The guidance is direct and actionable.

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