Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

The description discloses much beyond annotations: it is read-only, requires no auth, performs a round-trip through the bridge, and returns specific diagnostic categories. It also explains the failure-mode hint, helping the agent interpret results. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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 and purpose, then lists the diagnostic outputs, then gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for a healthcheck tool with no parameters and no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the diagnostic fields returned: role, port, version, extension link state, elapsed time, and human-readable hint. It also explains how to interpret the failure categories, making the tool fully usable without external context.

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 there is no schema burden to compensate for. The description adds relevant input context by stating no auth is required and that the URL is fixed, making the no-input nature clear.

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 names a specific verb and resource: round-tripping a public /robots.txt URL through the fetchproxy bridge. It clearly differentiates this diagnostic tool from the surrounding Redfin property tools by focusing on bridge health rather than real estate data.

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 states when to call the tool: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' It does not enumerate when not to use it or list alternative diagnostics, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make the right selection.

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