pick_best_proxies

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that proxies are returned; it doesn't explain what 'highest-ranked' means, how ranking is computed, whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no proxies match, or that default filters (like checkedWithinMin=30) apply. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action. It is concise and efficiently structured, though its brevity sacrifices useful contextual details that are missing from other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is far too thin. It doesn't explain return value structure, ranking methodology, default count behavior, or edge cases like empty results. An agent would need to infer essential behavior from parameter names alone, which is inadequate for reliable 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic word 'filters,' which neither clarifies nor contradicts the schema's detailed descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('highest-ranked proxies'), clearly indicating this tool selects a ranked subset rather than listing all proxies. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling list_proxies through the 'highest-ranked' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus list_proxies or proxy_snapshot_stats. The phrase 'matching filters' implies a filtering scenario, but it doesn't specify when ranking is preferable to a plain list, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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