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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorld=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: fail-closed semantics ('A proxy that fails fails the connection; nothing goes around it') and removal latency ('within seconds'). The only weak spot is the vague 'kept top-up' requirement.

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?

Front-loads the overall purpose, then structures the three actions compactly in a single block with no wasted sentences. The cryptic 'kept top-up' clause is the one element that costs it a perfect 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what each action does, the fail-closed safety behavior, and removal timing, and annotations handle the safety profile. It lacks any auth/permission or billing detail (what 'kept top-up' actually requires), leaving a small gap.

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 75%, so the schema already documents url, hosts, secret, and the action enum in detail. The description's 'set(url, secret?, hosts?)' merely restates the parameter list without adding format or meaning beyond the schema, fitting the baseline 3 for a well-covered 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?

States a specific verb+resource: routing the organization's sandboxes' outbound connections through a user-supplied HTTP/HTTPS proxy, and enumerates all three actions (get/set/remove) with their effect. The resource is distinct from sibling network tools like runtime_networks_wireguard and runtime_networks_private, though it never names them to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 per-action breakdown (get = show current proxy, set = configure, remove = connections leave directly) implies when each mode applies. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as wireguard or private networks, and the phrase 'Needs a kept top-up' is opaque rather than actionable.

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