Show the TCP fingerprint of proxies

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 real behavioral context beyond that: the null profile_id means the device's own unmasked fingerprint, and unsupported proxy types surface under 'errors' rather than failing silently. Auth or rate-limit behavior is not covered, so this is not a 5.

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 compact sentences with the output interpretation and the scope/error constraint front-loaded. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 must interpret return values, and it does explain both the null case and the errors bucket. It is close to complete for a simple read tool, though a hint about response shape (per-proxy mapping) would fully close the gap.

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 one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents proxy_ids (including the mobile/server restriction). The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what is already structured, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource (shows the TCP fingerprint profile each proxy imitates) plus a scope constraint. It is distinguishable from set_tcp_fingerprint by the read-only framing, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like diagnose_tcp_fingerprint or list_tcp_profiles.

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 description constrains the applicable input domain ('mobile and server proxies only') and states what happens otherwise ('listed in errors'), which is implicit usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over diagnose_tcp_fingerprint or list_tcp_profiles, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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