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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the output is a non-executed example, credentials/target are local placeholders, and no other agent tooling is touched. It does not mention what the generated snippet looks like structurally, but with a rich output schema that is acceptable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the placeholder caveat and the non-execution boundary. No filler or repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the generation-only nature, the exact-version constraint, and placeholder semantics. It leaves unstated what the snippet actually contains (headers, env var wiring), but that is a minor gap for a simple generation tool.

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 75%, so the schema already documents client, version, and protocol. The description reinforces the key constraint that version must match the client and only exact tested versions work, but it adds no detail on protocol or timeoutSeconds beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 fits.

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 (Generate) and resource (HTTPS GET example / proxy configuration) and names the exact client families covered. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like search_proxy_docs and diagnose_proxy_error because generation is a distinct action, but it never names an alternative 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 description implies usage context through 'exact tested ... version' and adds scope exclusions ('does not execute the example or configure other agent tools'). It stops short of saying when to pick this over search_proxy_docs or get_proxy_doc, so guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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