webshare_list_proxies

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default-masking security behavior — passwords are redacted unless include_credentials=true — which the agent could not infer otherwise. However it says nothing about pagination behavior (how page_size interacts with results), scoping to the account/plan, or rate limits.

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 compact sentences with no filler: the listing scope and returned fields come first, then the credential-masking exception. Slightly dense trailing parenthetical, but nothing is wasted.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is the sole source of truth for a 3-parameter tool. It covers the return fields and the credential flag, but the completely unexplained 'mode' parameter (default 'direct') and paging behavior leave an agent guessing how to call 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only explains include_credentials (and does so well); 'mode' with default 'direct' is completely opaque and 'page_size' is never mentioned, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 names a specific verb (list) and resource (proxies) and enumerates the returned fields (address, port, country, city, ASN, validity), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as webshare_list_replacements or webshare_list_ip_authorizations, though the names are distinct enough to infer the split.

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?

Usage is only implied: the include_credentials note implies you pass it when unmasked credentials are needed. There is no statement of when to prefer this over webshare_list_replacements or webshare_list_ip_authorizations, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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