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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the exact return format, which is useful, but says nothing about sensitivity of credentials, rate limits, or how proxy_id must be obtained.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the resource and including the exact output shape.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the return format. It could be stronger by stating that the connection string is sensitive and should not be exposed.

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 100%; the proxy_id parameter is documented in the schema as coming from list_proxies. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the one-parameter shape, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states the resource (connection string for one proxy) and gives the concrete format. It is reasonably distinct from siblings, but does not explicitly name the proxy_id linkage or differentiate from list_proxies beyond context.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to obtain a connection string for a single proxy. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named.

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