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

Annotations already say read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it includes disabled proxies by default, hides passwords in item.data, and explains pagination continuation with next_page_start and null cursor as the terminal marker. This gives an agent important operational expectations without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and efficient: three sentences cover scope, security-sensitive return content, downstream use of IDs, and pagination. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool is simple: two optional parameters, full schema coverage, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description fills the remaining gaps with pagination behavior, the password-exclusion guarantee, and how IDs should be used downstream. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents count and page_start clearly. The description reinforces how page_start relates to item.pagination.next_page_start and when pagination ends, but it does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond what the input schema already states.

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 and resource ('Lists the organization's proxies') and adds important scope detail ('including disabled proxies'), which distinguishes the list operation from get_proxy and the create/update/delete siblings. The downstream instruction about using an id as proxy_id further clarifies what the listed items are for.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to list all proxies, including disabled ones, and to obtain IDs for image or template requests. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as get_proxy for single-item lookups, but the purpose and pagination flow make the usage context reasonably clear.

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