Get current proxy IP & health

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld, so the description carries real weight and delivers: the ~3s extra latency of check_spam, that it is the only way to assess IP quality, and the important residential-proxy caveat that the check returns a different pool IP and says nothing about the sticky-session IP. This is exactly the beyond-annotations context an agent needs.

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, then usage, cost, and the caveat. Four sentences, each doing work, though the residential caveat sentence is dense and slightly overpacked relative to the rest.

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 steps in to say what is returned (current external IP, blacklist listing) and when results are or aren't trustworthy. Sufficient for correct invocation, though the exact return shape is not fully enumerated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: check_spam is the only quality-assessment path and is slower, and the residential caveat constrains interpretation of the result. That exceeds what the schema's terse 'Run spam-blacklist check' conveys.

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 (the CURRENT external IP of a proxy), plus an explicit optional secondary operation (spam/abuse blacklist check). An agent can distinguish this from rotation siblings like rotate_ip and rotate_until_clean immediately.

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 explicit when-to-use ('verify a fresh rotation succeeded', 'decide if you need to rotate again because the IP is dirty') and a sharp when-not/don't-rely caveat for residential proxies where the check bypasses the sticky session. The condition for choosing check_spam=true is also spelled out.

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