Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying that the check is read-only and auth-free, and by enumerating the exact diagnostics returned: role, port, version, extension link state, round-trip time, and a plain-English failure-mode hint. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint.

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 substantial but every clause earns its place: it states the action, the exact test URL, the full set of returned diagnostics, the safety properties, and the intended usage trigger. It is well-structured and front-loads the core purpose before diving into detail.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns and when to invoke it. It fully covers the return diagnostics and even distinguishes the possible failure modes, making the tool self-contained and easy for an agent to use correctly.

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, and the input schema is empty, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than input semantics.

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 ('Round-trips'), a specific resource ('fetchproxy bridge'), and a concrete target URL ('/robots.txt'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from the data-oriented sibling tools like tock_search_restaurants and tock_get_availability.

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 provides an explicit trigger: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative diagnostic tools.

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