Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact URL tested, the diagnostic fields (role, port, version, elapsed time, hint), and the three failure modes the hint distinguishes. It also confirms read-only and no auth, consistent 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?

The description is two sentences: first describes action and output, second gives usage guidance and properties. Every sentence is essential, no redundancy. Front-loaded with key action 'Round-trips a small public Redfin URL'.

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 parameters and no output schema but rich annotations, the description provides sufficient detail about return values (role, port, version, elapsed time, hint) and usage context. It could specify if the output is JSON or text, but the agent can infer from the description.

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 parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it implicitly describes what the tool does without parameters. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, which is satisfied.

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 title 'Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end' and description clearly state the tool rounds-trips a public Redfin URL and returns diagnostics. The verb 'Round-trips' and resource 'fetchproxy bridge' are specific. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on property data, sessions, etc.

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 explicitly states when to call: 'when a real Redfin tool times out and you want to know which hop failed.' It also implies not to use for normal operations. No alternative diagnostic tool exists among siblings, so no need to name an alternative.

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