Get ready-to-paste connection strings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: exactly what the returned strings look like, that mobile proxies include a change-IP URL, and that residential output reflects live geo settings mutated by set_residential_geo. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the output-shape disclosure is substantial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the enumeration of output formats and the geo caveat. Dense but each clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly (four concrete output forms plus the mobile change-IP case). Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, the definition is complete enough to call correctly, though a note on when to prefer it over sibling credential tools is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (proxy_id) with 100% schema coverage, including a description pointing to list_proxies. The description never mentions the parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 verb (returns) and resource (a proxy's credentials as ready-to-paste strings) and enumerates the exact output forms (http/socks5 URLs, host:port:login:password line, curl command, change-IP link). An agent can distinguish this from credential-mutating siblings like change_proxy_credentials or update_proxy_settings.

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 implied rather than stated: the strings are for proxy managers and browser-profile tools, and for residential proxies they reflect geo settings that set_residential_geo changes. There is no explicit 'use this when/when-not' or named alternative, so the agent must infer that this is the copy-paste export path.

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