list_proxy_products

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explicitly stating the tool returns NO proxy passwords and pointing to the tools that do. It also discloses the scope ('on this account') and output fields. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but the tool has no parameters and the listing nature is clear.

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 compact and information-dense: it names the action, defines the output fields, decodes product codes, warns about missing passwords, and gives ordering guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful content without redundancy.

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 simple, parameterless read-only list operation, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, what it does not return, how to interpret product codes, and when to call it. No output schema exists, but the description covers the return shape adequately by listing the fields.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail; it already explains what the returned data will include.

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's verb and resource: list the Evomi proxy products on the account. It enumerates the exact returned fields (gateway hostname, HTTP/SOCKS5 ports, remaining data balance, proxy username) and product codes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from adjacent proxy tools.

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 explicitly instructs when to call it first ('Call this first to see what the account actually has balance on') and provides specific alternatives for proxy passwords ('use get_proxy_credentials or build_proxy_connection_string for those'). This gives an agent clear routing guidance.

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