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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions stickiness and IP reuse, but omits details on session lifecycle, error conditions, or impact of parameters like ttlSeconds (e.g., what happens on expiry).

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 a single, highly concise sentence. It front-loads the core action and differentiator. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, which slightly lowers the score.

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 the absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool description is critically incomplete. It does not explain return values (e.g., session ID, IP address), parameter details, or behavioral context needed for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain each parameter. It does not address type (e.g., residential vs. datacenter), region (format or allowed values), or ttlSeconds (beyond a numeric default). The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'sticky proxy session', and specifies the key benefit 'same IP for multiple requests'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_proxy_fetch, which likely provides a single-use proxy.

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 implies usage for scenarios needing persistent IP, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent_proxy_fetch), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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