Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value beyond them: no auth required, an external network round-trip, and the diagnostic categories (bridge role, extension link state, failure classification). No contradiction with 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?

A dense first sentence front-loads the core behavior, and every diagnostic field listed earns its place. Slightly long, but justified by the number of outputs a health-check tool must describe.

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 carries the return-value burden and discharges it thoroughly: role, port, version, extension link states, elapsed RTT, and plain-English failure hints. Auth and side effects are addressed; nothing an agent needs to invoke this zero-parameter tool 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?

Zero parameters, so the empty schema is vacuously complete at 100% coverage; baseline 4 applies. The description's lack of parameter detail is harmless since there is nothing to document.

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 verb and resource: round-trips /robots.txt through the fetchproxy bridge. Clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from the 19 data-retrieval siblings, and the closing sentence identifies its troubleshooting role (which hop broke).

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' Provides clear context, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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