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, idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it describes the round-trip mechanism, the fixed URL tested, the diagnostic fields (role, port, version, elapsed time, hint), and the failure categories. No contradiction.

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?

Description is concise (~3 sentences) with key info front-loaded: action, output, usage context. Every sentence adds value—no fluff.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and use case. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns or when to use 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the fixed URL and the diagnostic outputs, adding meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 specifies the exact action: round-tripping a public wd5.myworkday.com URL through the fetchproxy bridge to return diagnostics. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (workday_get_apps, workday_get_task) by focusing on connectivity health, not data retrieval.

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: 'when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' Also highlights that it's read-only and needs no auth. Lacks explicit 'when not to use', but the context is clear enough.

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