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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about what the tool does, whether it makes network calls, what it detects about a proxy, or what it returns. The description is entirely vacuous.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The phrase 'Proxy Detect: Proxy Detect' contains zero informative content; every word is redundant with the tool name.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and one generic parameter, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain what 'proxy detect' means, what input format is expected, what the result looks like, or how it differs from the dozens of sibling detect tools.

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% — the single 'input' parameter is documented as 'Input to process' in the schema itself. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies per the high-coverage rule, though the schema text itself is quite generic.

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 exactly 'Proxy Detect: Proxy Detect' — a pure tautology that restates the tool name without adding a verb, resource, or function. It provides no information that would distinguish it from siblings like x402-api-key-detect, x402-service-detect, or x402-charset-detect.

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 zero guidance on when to invoke this tool, what input it expects, or which of the many detect-style siblings should be chosen instead. An agent has no basis for selecting this tool over x402-service-detect, x402-ua-parse, or any other detection tool.

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