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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context that proxies forward requests to third parties and detokenize in flight, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or auth requirements beyond what the schema implies.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; the trailing 'Basis Theory: GET /proxies' REST mapping is mildly redundant but compact and harmless.

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, three-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what the returned list contains (proxy objects, pagination envelope), which an agent would need to consume results correctly.

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% (name, page, size all documented in the schema), so the parameter contract is fully carried by structured fields. The description adds no additional meaning about how filtering or pagination interact, 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the proxies') and even explains what a proxy does ('forward requests to third parties, detokenizing in flight'), which helps distinguish it from sibling list tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular sibling basis_theory_get_proxy, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 guidance on when to use this versus basis_theory_get_proxy for a single proxy, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely asserts what the tool does, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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