skuuy_list_proxies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral value beyond that — periodic health-checking, per-entry last_checked freshness, and the unreliability caveat with retry advice. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination semantics.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by filters and a caveat. No filler, though the anonymity-tier gloss repeats schema text that could have been trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully notes that each entry includes last_checked so freshness can be judged, and covers the filter surface. Pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults and max) and the return envelope are left to the schema, which is acceptable for a list tool.

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 71%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description restates protocol/country/anonymity/max-latency filters and glosses L1/L2/L3, but the tier explanation largely duplicates the enum description and it omits limit/offset semantics. 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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (tested-live public proxies) plus scope (HTTP/HTTPS/SOCKS4/SOCKS5, 150+ countries) and the health-check guarantee. No sibling deals with proxies, so an agent can instantly identify this as the proxy-source tool.

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?

Gives concrete consumption guidance ('always implement retry/fallback' because free proxies are unreliable) and enumerates the filtering axes, but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing against an alternative. Clear context, no exclusions, which fits a 4.

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