Discover Proxenio Platform

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

The description discloses that 'This tool requires no authentication' and lists return contents (platform description, trust model, available capabilities, authentication method, rate limits). Since annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the added no-auth and return-value details are valuable supplementary context, though it does not dive deeper into edge behaviors.

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?

The description is front-loaded and organized with a concise opening, background sentence, return list, and examples. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to repeated 'before connecting/authenticating' phrasing, but every section adds useful orientation.

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?

For a simple discovery tool with no parameters and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states purpose, no-auth requirement, returned information, and usage examples. It also clearly signals when not to use it by referencing reading matches, which maps to the sibling proxenio_get_matches.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description appropriately adds that no authentication is required, but there are no parameter details to document; this matches the baseline of 4 for a zero-param tool.

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?

The first sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Get information about the Proxenio platform and its agent API.' This distinguishes it from siblings like proxenio_get_matches (reading matches) and proxenio_set_api_key (authentication setup), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use it to understand the platform before connecting,' plus concrete example triggers ('What is Proxenio?') and a negative case ('Don't use when you already know about Proxenio and just need to read matches'), which points toward the alternative sibling.

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