get_proxy_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses that the result contains live credentials and includes a security warning about not echoing the contents. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the security context is valuable and makes the tool's sensitive nature clear.

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 moderately concise, containing three functional segments: primary action, alternative usage, and security warning. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but it efficiently conveys key information without excessive verbosity.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return data format (ip, port, username, password), security handling, and usage context. It explains when to use alternative tools. This is fairly complete for a simple tool, though it could mention potential error states.

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%, as the single parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Proxy service id from list_proxies.' The description adds no new information beyond restating that the id comes from list_proxies, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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's function: 'List the live proxy endpoints and credentials' for an active proxy service. It distinguishes between ISP fixed-IP plans and GB Residential buckets, and names alternative tools for the latter, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool for ISP fixed-IP plans, and for GB Residential use list_proxy_requests + get_proxy_request_list instead. It also states that the id comes from list_proxies, implying a prerequisite. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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