generate_proxy_list

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful output behavior: 'Each proxy in the result has a url field usable directly as an HTTP/SOCKS5 proxy.' But it does not disclose details like whether it requires existing provider accounts, how it interacts with count limits, or any error behavior. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then a useful output detail and provider recommendation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 provides the core purpose and a key output detail, and an output schema exists, which reduces the burden. However, it does not explain prerequisites (e.g., whether a provider is needed from list_providers), how this differs from get_proxies, or the meaning of 'generate' in a read-only context. Given the tool's complexity (10 params, sibling tools), this is a noticeable gap but not a total failure.

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 coverage is only 40%, with descriptions for country, rotation, proxy_type, and session_duration. The tool description mentions 'geo-targeting' and 'rotation' which vaguely points to several parameters but does not explicitly explain any of them. It fails to clarify the required 'provider' parameter or 'count'/'protocol'. This does not sufficiently compensate for the low schema 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 a specific action and resource: 'Generate ready-to-use proxy strings with geo-targeting and rotation.' It also adds that each result has a 'url' field usable directly as an HTTP/SOCKS5 proxy, which distinguishes it from retrieval tools like get_proxies. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose.

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 gives clear context: 'Best for residential/rotating providers (e.g. iproyal).' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_proxies for existing proxies'), so it stops short of a 5.

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