proxy_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only status check by using '확인' and lists the exact dimensions of information returned. It does not mention whether a live connection test is performed or whether the status is cached, but for a no-parameter status tool the description is reasonably transparent.

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 a single, focused sentence that leads with the action and object, then adds the three key aspects shown. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 no-input status tool without an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool checks and enumerates the specific information the agent can expect. There are no parameters, annotations, or nested structures that create additional context requirements.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's informational output rather than any input details.

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 ('확인합니다' / checks) and a clear resource ('현재 프록시/차단 상태'), then enumerates what is covered: Zyte API key configuration, per-site block status, and automatic proxy switching. This fully distinguishes the tool from the sibling product-search and build tools, which address completely different concerns.

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 that the tool is for checking the current proxy/block status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Since the sibling tools are unrelated to proxy/block status, no direct alternative is named, but the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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