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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the response includes the proxy ID and configuration but omits passwords. It makes the mutation side effect obvious and provides security-relevant return behavior, though it does not describe error cases or name-conflict handling.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The purpose and the important return behavior are front-loaded, and every clause adds operational value.

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 input schema is complex with nested objectsaging and 100% coverage, and the output schema is noted as present, so the short description is sufficient for invocation. The only real gap is lack of explicit alternative routing, but that is already accounted for in usage_guidelines.

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%, and every nested property already has detailed meaning in the input schema. The tool description contributes no significant parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it creates an organization proxy for routing image requests registry. This is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like update_proxy, delete_proxy, and get_proxy, and it tells the agent the core return value (ID and config without passwords).

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 verb 'creates' makes the lifecycle intent clear, so an agent can infer this is for new proxies rather than updates or deletes. However, the description never explicitly says to use update_proxy for changes or provides exclusions, leaving alternative routing to inference.

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