my_proxy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Show' clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation, and the listed outputs make the tool's behavior concrete. It could still disclose potential side effects or costs, but none are evident for a status tool.

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 sentence delivers the full purpose with no filler. The main action and outputs are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential context: what status is being queried, its geographic scope, and the quota aspect. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter semantics to convey. The description focuses on the returned status information, which is the only meaningful semantic content available.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and narrows the resource to 'current Singapore exit IP, carrier, and remaining quota.' This is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as fetch_url, rotate_ip, and search_google, which target different operations.

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 implies a status-check use case but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings. Because the sibling tools have obviously different functions, the ambiguity is minimal, yet no explicit when-to-use guidance is given.

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