generate_proxy_list

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/destructive hints; the description adds materially valuable behavior beyond them: the output 'CONTAINS PROXY PASSWORDS', each password is 'a live credential', there is explicit secret-handling guidance (use it, don't repeat it unless asked), and a documented failure mode (no data balance). The explicit 'Read-only' statement is consistent with readOnlyHint=true; no contradiction.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, scope limit, output-safety warning, targeting restrictions, failure mode, and secret-handling policy. The secret-handling section runs three sentences and could be tightened slightly, but it is high-stakes guidance that justifies the length. Key facts (bulk generation, password-bearing output, sibling alternative) are front-loaded.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and a security-sensitive return value, the description covers the critical decision surface: what the output is (proxy strings with live passwords), scope limits, targeting exclusions, failure condition, and secret handling. It does not describe the exact response envelope or error format, but the schema's format enum plus this description give an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it groups the supported parameters ('country/city/region/ISP targeting, sessions and ad blocking'), identifies exclusions (zip, ASN, pool, expert filters), and explains the amount cap in security terms ('because every line embeds a live proxy password'). It doesn't enumerate every parameter, but it tells the agent which parameter families are relevant and why.

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 ('Generate'), a specific resource ('bulk list of Evomi proxy strings server-side via the Public API'), a hard limit (up to 50 per call), and the intended use case (pasting into tools that take a proxy list file). It also differentiates from the sibling build_proxy_connection_string by naming that tool directly, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly gives the exclusion condition ('for zip, ASN, pool mode or expert filters use build_proxy_connection_string instead'), names the alternative tool, and adds a second routing rule for larger lists ('use the Evomi dashboard's generator rather than a conversation'). Also flags a precondition ('Fails if the product has no data balance'). Nothing is left to inference.

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