Account health check

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses useful behavior: results are filtered to only what needs attention and ordered critical → warning → info, and it explains the cost tradeoff of check_spam (one lookup per proxy, slower). It doesn't detail pagination or exact thresholds, but adds real context over the annotations.

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, then the return ordering, then the optional-cost caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so at a high level ('only what needs attention, ordered critical → warning → info'). It covers the optional spam path, though the exact shape of each item is left 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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning on top: it explains check_spam adds one lookup per mobile/server proxy bounded by max_spam_checks and flags the resulting slowdown. It leaves expiring_within_days and low_traffic_percent to the schema, so it isn't fully additive.

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+resource ('one-call answer to is everything OK with my proxies') and enumerates what it aggregates: balance, expiring proxies, running-out traffic, and optional blacklist checks. This clearly distinguishes it as an aggregate health tool apart from siblings like get_balance, list_proxies, and get_proxy_status.

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?

The framing 'one-call answer to is everything OK' gives clear context for when to reach for it, and it warns that check_spam=true is slower, which guides the optional-path decision. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for narrower questions (e.g., get_balance), so no exclusions are stated.

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