Check proxies from this machine

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description explains why: the run updates local statistics proxy-scraper learns from, so it is not a pure read. It also discloses runtime (30-90 s live, a few minutes full) and that progress is reported mid-run, which the annotations don't cover.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the differentiating detail and the cost/timing note. The list of internal checks (handshake, honeypot, byte-for-byte, TLS) is slightly decorative but justifies why verification is meaningful, so it mostly earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers timing, side effects, and the sibling comparison. For a 9-parameter open-world scan, this is nearly complete, though it doesn't mention rate limits or network-auth requirements.

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 100% and the schema documents mode, want, protocol, countries, and the filter flags with their own descriptions. The prose adds only the live/full timing distinction, not new per-parameter meaning, so the 3 baseline is correct.

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?

'Find proxies that work from this machine's network right now' is a specific verb+resource with explicit scope (this machine, right now). It distinguishes itself from the public list and names the sibling get_proxies, so an agent can differentiate the two without opening either schema.

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 clearly frames the choice against get_proxies: run the same checks 'but from here' so results are verified seconds ago on the caller's network, and it flags the cost tradeoff ('Slower than get_proxies: 30-90 s'). It does not give an explicit when-not rule or say to prefer get_proxies when cached results suffice, so it stops short of 5.

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