Check the TCP fingerprint a site sees

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, but the description adds critical operational traits: it makes real outbound requests, can take up to ~45 seconds, caches results for 60 seconds per proxy, and is limited to one mobile or server proxy. These are exactly the details an agent needs to avoid timeouts or redundant calls.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by three short, high-value sentences on latency, caching, and scope. No filler; every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

There is no output schema, and while the description lists the observed fingerprint components (TTL, window, MSS, etc.) it does not describe the comparison result structure or failure behavior. Given the annotations and the operational warnings, it is largely complete but leaves the return shape implicit.

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 100% and the sole parameter is documented as a mobile or server proxy_id from list_proxies. The description's 'mobile or server only' and 'one proxy per call' reinforce the schema constraint but add no new naming, format, or range semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific action (sends a real request through the proxy) and resource (fingerprinting endpoints), and its active-probe nature distinguishes it from set_tcp_fingerprint, which it names. It does not explicitly differentiate from the close sibling get_tcp_fingerprint, leaving some ambiguity about which verification tool to pick.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use ('to confirm set_tcp_fingerprint took effect') and practical constraints (slow, cached, one proxy per call, mobile/server only). It doesn't name alternatives such as get_tcp_fingerprint or state 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.