Check Residential Proxy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds details on return structure (ResidentialProxyDetails with fields), and error conditions (auth_insufficient_scope vs auth_invalid). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, return fields, use cases, sibling distinction, auth requirements. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool (one parameter, output schema exists, rich annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral nuances, and authentication, leaving no gaps for an AI 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% for the single 'ip' parameter (includes description, format, examples). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate for this high coverage.

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 purpose: 'Classify whether an IP is a known residential-proxy exit node.' This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from the sibling 'ipinfo_lookup_ips' which provides general privacy flags.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('fraud, bot, and ad-fraud detection') and when-not-to-use ('distinct from the general privacy flags on ipinfo_lookup_ips'). Also mentions alternative tool for VPN/Tor/hosting detection. Authentication requirements and error distinctions are clearly specified.

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