Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only, no auth required' and by enumerating the specific diagnostic outputs (role, port, version, link state, round-trip time, plain-English hint). This gives meaningful transparency beyond the annotations, though it does not mention the fact it performs an external network round-trip and may have latency or transient failure beyond the annotations' coverage.

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?

Two sentences carry the full burden: the first packs the resource, action, and full diagnostic list; the second gives the usage trigger. The text is information-dense with no obvious padding. It could be slightly cleaner if the diagnostic list were bulleted, but it stays readable and all clauses earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover what the tool returns; it does comprehensively: bridge role, port, version, link status, elapsed round-trip time, and the plain-English hop diagnosis. It also covers the invocation context (zero params, read-only, no auth) and the expected failure scenario. Nothing an agent needs to decide or call the tool correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema is an empty object). The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly adds no parameter explanation because none is needed. There is no ambiguity in parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Round-trips a small public wd5.myworkday.com URL through the fetchproxy bridge') and names the exact resource (the bridge). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like workday_fetch and workday_graphql by positioning this as a diagnostic healthcheck rather than a data-retrieval call. The title 'Verify the fetchproxy bridge end-to-end' is fully translated into concrete behavior.

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 last sentence gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This clearly communicates a primary use case and implies the healthcheck is not a routine fetch tool. However, it does not name alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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