coronium_get_proxies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds ownership and return format context, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This leaves gaps in behavioral disclosure but is adequate for a simple list operation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and supplemented by essential return detail. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is a model of efficient writing.

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 list tool with three optional filters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return format. It does not mention how filters combine or result ordering, but the schema covers parameter semantics, making it sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with a clear meaning (online_only, country_code, expiring_within_days). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the load; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists the user's mobile proxies, using the specific verb 'List' and resource. It further specifies the return format (name, host:port, login, expiry, country), which distinguishes it from singular get_proxy and other list-oriented 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?

Usage is implied ('List the user's mobile proxies') but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this instead of alternatives like coronium_get_proxy or list_free_modems. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, making it clear but not prescriptive.

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