list_proxy_requests

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'list' and describes the output structure (groups). However, it could clarify pagination, limits, or ordering.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose (what, why, scope, source). No redundant words.

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 no output schema and one parameter, description provides sufficient context: input source, output structure, and scope. Could mention return format or count, but not necessary.

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 has one parameter with description, and the description adds value by specifying that the id comes from list_proxies. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the extra context justifies a higher score.

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 it lists proxy-requests on a GB Residential bandwidth bucket, specifying they are country + rotation-interval + count groups. It distinguishes itself from get_proxy_list for ISP fixed-IP plans, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (to see groups or find proxy-request id) and restricts scope to GB Residential only. It also tells where to get the input id (from list_proxies) and implicitly advises against using it for ISP fixed-IP plans.

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