Proxy / VPN Check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (checking against known proxy/VPN/anonymizer lists), but does not mention data source, coverage, staleness, rate limits, or return format. Basic behavior is clear; operational limitations are omitted.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then a use case. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 single-parameter checker with good schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose and use case. It does not describe return values, but given the low complexity and lack of an output schema, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation.

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 schema already documents the single 'ip' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter-level detail. The description's context (assessing traffic trust) reinforces the parameter's meaning, but it does not enhance the schema-provided information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and clearly identifies the resource (IP address) and the target condition (known proxy, VPN, or anonymizer exit). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ip_geolocation or whois_lookup by focusing on network anonymity/trust rather than location or registration.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to assess whether traffic from an IP can be trusted, e.g. for fraud triage or log investigation.' This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for when not to use it.

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