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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is well covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — that credentials/passwords are masked in results — but says nothing about defaults, result shape, or paging behavior.

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?

One short parenthetical is efficient and front-loads the most decision-relevant fact (no secrets returned). It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it scores well on economy but not on completeness.

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 simple read-only, zero-required-parameter, fully documented list tool with strong annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema, the agent learns nothing about what a proxy record contains beyond the password-masking note.

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%: page, search and per_page are each fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is a noun phrase, "Proxies (passwords are never returned).", with no explicit verb, so the listing action comes only from the tool name and title. The resource is clear, but nothing distinguishes this from the many other list_* siblings beyond the resource noun itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. An agent gets no routing guidance at all beyond the resource name.

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