acquire_proxy

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the selection algorithm (first configured provider that can serve the requested type, preferring generation over listing) and that it works across any configured provider. It does not describe failure behavior or rate limits, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and each sentence adds value—purpose and usage guidance. No waste.

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?

The description covers core function, usage context, and selection behavior. It does not explain the country parameter's role or what happens when no provider matches, but the output schema handles return values and the tool is simple with only two optional parameters. Thus it is largely complete but with noticeable gaps.

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 description references 'requested type' but does not explain the country parameter or confirm how parameters filter provider selection. With schema coverage at 50% (country lacks a description), the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter, leaving country semantics unclear.

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 obtains a single ready-to-use proxy from any configured provider, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_proxies (plural) and generate_proxy_list (list generation). It also notes the provider selection logic (first available, preferring generation over listing), making its scope and behavior obvious.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as a convenience for when you need a proxy quickly ('I just need a proxy now'), and directs users to 'more specific tools' for provider control, implying a when-not. However, it does not name the specific alternative tools, relying on the sibling list for that information.

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