proxy_fetch

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

The description discloses that it routes through residential IPs in 195+ countries, and mentions auto-rotation of IP if no country specified. However, since no annotations are provided, it should also mention potential side effects (e.g., cost, rate limits, IP rotation impact) which are missing. No contradiction with annotations as none exist.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds value with use cases.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (100% cover), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects. It could include a note about response format or potential failures, but overall it provides enough context for a competent agent.

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%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds context about country targeting and session stickyness but does not significantly expand beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a URL through a residential proxy network, with specific use cases like geo-restricted content and anti-bot bypass. It distinguishes from siblings like proxy_check_ip (which checks own IP) and proxy_list_countries (which lists countries).

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?

The description mentions when to use the tool (geo-restricted content, anti-bot bypass, multi-country research), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.

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