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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it makes an external network round-trip, requires no auth, returns specific diagnostic fields, and distinguishes failure categories such as 'bridge never came up' versus 'extension not connected.'

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 dense but every phrase earns its place: the action, exact test target, returned diagnostics, failure categories, usage trigger, and auth requirements are all packed in without redundancy. The key verb and purpose are front-loaded.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, return values, and usage. It does so thoroughly by enumerating the diagnostics, the failure modes it disambiguates, and the precise condition under which to call it.

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 parameter documentation burden. The schema is empty and fully covered, and the description clarifies that the tool performs a fixed diagnostic action without requiring inputs.

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 action — round-tripping a small public Tripadvisor URL through the fetchproxy bridge — and clearly identifies the output as diagnostics. It distinguishes this from the sibling data-fetching tools by framing it as a health check for the bridge rather than a content lookup.

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: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This gives a clear diagnostic trigger context, though it does not spell out 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.