list_proxy_targeting_options

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with these. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the catalogue is large, results are filtered and capped, entries expose an 'id' and 'name', and no credentials are returned. This is exactly the kind of extra context an agent needs.

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, usage condition, id/name semantics, cap behavior, and credential safety. The most important information is front-loaded, and the description is compact despite covering several distinct points.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the shape of entries ('id' and 'name'), the cap behavior, the filtering mechanism, and what is not returned. It also tells the agent when to use the tool in a larger workflow. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only lookup tool.

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 75% and the schema already documents product, limit, and search. The description adds meaning by explaining that returned 'id' values are what the gateway accepts and should be passed back, while 'name' is only a display form. This helps the agent correctly use results even though the schema does not describe the response.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Look up which countries, regions, cities, ISPs or continents can be targeted on a given Evomi proxy product.' It clearly distinguishes this lookup tool from sibling tools like list_proxy_products and build_proxy_connection_string by naming the exact purpose and the related tool it feeds into.

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 an explicit usage rule: 'Call this before build_proxy_connection_string whenever a city, region or ISP is involved.' This tells the agent when the tool is needed and which sibling it is a prerequisite for, leaving little to inference.

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