tor_exit_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned data (fingerprints, timestamps, exit addresses), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or data freshness beyond what the schema already implies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned-field list is the only elaboration and it earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 read-only, no-required-param lookup whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose single parameter is fully documented, the description is largely sufficient. The missing piece is differentiation from the other Tor-exit siblings, which leaves selection ambiguous.

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?

Only one parameter (limit) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it with default and bounds. The description adds nothing about the limit parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Tor exit node information) and enumerates the returned fields (fingerprints, publish timestamps, exit addresses). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related siblings tor_exit_nodes and tor_exit_check, leaving the agent to guess which of the three Tor-exit tools to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling is the alternative. With three Tor-exit-related tools in the list, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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