get_proxies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and completeness profile. The description adds 'already on your account' as scoping context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering behavior, or provider-specific caveats. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second provides decision-relevant guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and sibling context, the description is mostly complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It could add a note about the optional filter parameters, but the schema partially covers those, and the core use case is well explained.

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 only 25%, and the description does not explain the limit, country, or proxy_type parameters beyond the schema's own partial descriptions. It clarifies only the provider dimension ('with a given provider'), leaving the other parameters under-explained for a low-coverage schema.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List proxies already on your account with a given provider.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_proxy_list by explicitly contrasting listing existing fixed-IP proxies vs generating rotating/residential pools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Best for providers that sell fixed IPs' and directly names the alternative for rotating/residential pools ('prefer generate_proxy_list'). This clearly tells an agent when to choose this tool over siblings.

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