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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication of whether it is read-only, what it inspects, what input format the 'input' and 'headers' fields expect, or what the result looks like. For a tool with zero structured behavioral hints, this is a complete gap.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single clause repeats the name twice and earns no informational place. There is no front-loaded purpose because there is no purpose stated.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only generic parameter descriptions, the definition leaves an agent unable to determine what the tool detects, what to pass, or what it returns. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is present.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema's own descriptions are placeholders ('Input to process', 'Headers to process') that convey no semantics beyond the property names. The description adds nothing to clarify what 'input' should contain or how 'headers' relate to proxy detection, so it fails to compensate for an effectively uninformative schema.

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 bare restatement of the tool name: 'Proxy Detect: Proxy Detect'. It supplies no verb phrase, no statement of what is detected (HTTP proxies? proxy contracts? proxy headers?) and no distinction from the hundreds of x402-* siblings such as x402-secret-scan or x402-payment-audit. This is tautology-level clarity.

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 tool, what situation it addresses, or which sibling to prefer. Nothing indicates whether it inspects an HTTP request, a smart contract, or something else, so an agent has no basis for selecting it over alternatives.

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