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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: generated strings include credentials, are ready-to-use, and 'plug straight into any HTTP client, e.g. curl -x'. It does not mention potential side effects like quota consumption, but it does not contradict 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?

Four focused sentences: purpose, supported capabilities, prerequisites, and output usability. Every sentence earns its place, with the most important action and resource stated first. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it produces, which sibling tools supply required inputs, supported modes, and how the output can be consumed. It does not explicitly state that the result is an array, but the quantity parameter and 'proxy endpoint strings' phrasing make that inferable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by mapping orderId to list_proxies and targeting codes to proxy_locations, which helps an agent know where parameter values come from. It also usefully summarizes geo targeting and output format capabilities, though the schema already documents individual fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate ready-to-use proxy endpoint strings (credentials included) from one of the account's active proxy services'. It also lists the covered proxy types and clearly separates this tool from sibling tools like list_proxies and proxy_locations by focusing on generation of endpoint strings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use list_proxies first to get the orderId, and proxy_locations for valid targeting codes,' giving clear sequencing and prerequisite guidance. It does not enumerate when to avoid this tool, but the prerequisite direction is clear enough to prevent improper use.

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