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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It says the tool checks whether a URL works, but it does not explain whether this makes a live network request, what side effects may occur, or what permissions are needed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

The low-complexity schema and annotations cover much of the needed context, and the description states the basic check behavior. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what a successful or failed test returns, and it leaves organizationId scope entirely to the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the required proxyUrl concept but adds no new meaning for organizationId or parameter formatting beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Check') and resource ('proxy URL works'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from get_proxy_config and set_proxy_config by implication, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.

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 only implied: use this tool when you need to verify that a proxy URL works. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as get_proxy_config or set_proxy_config.

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