Rotate until the IP is clean

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: active connections drop on every rotation (concretizing destructiveHint), a cooldown refusal path returning status="cooldown" with wait_seconds, the mobile-only restriction, and that the operation is free of charge. These are operational facts the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause carries information (loop semantics, alternative, cooldown return, side effect, scope, cost). It is dense and reads as one long run-on sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 still discloses the meaningful return shape (status="cooldown" plus wait_seconds) along with prerequisites, side effects, scope limits, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including keep_if_clean's exact semantics. The description's 'up to max_attempts' and keep_if_clean restatement largely duplicate the schema rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (get a mobile proxy onto an IP absent from spam/abuse blacklists) and describes the rotate-check-repeat loop. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools rotate_ip and get_proxy_status by framing itself as a one-call replacement for chaining them.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative workflow ('in one call instead of chaining rotate_ip and get_proxy_status'), states the keep_if_clean=true conditional behavior, and gives a hard scope restriction ('Mobile proxies only (proxy_type=0)'). An agent knows exactly when to pick this over rotate_ip.

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