Create a ProxyLLM account (email OTP)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that a code is emailed, that accounts are unpaid, and that they are removed after 48 hours without human activation. These are critical behavioral implications an agent must know.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second adds key constraints (no captcha, unpaid, 48-hour loss), and the third directs the next step. No fluff, front-loaded, and highly scannable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully covers the flow, the outcome, and the required follow-up. An agent can confidently invoke this tool and know what to expect.

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%: both email and source have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 description opens with 'Starts autonomous account creation', clearly identifying the tool's verb (starts), resource (account creation), and method (email OTP). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the follow-up proxyllm_verify_signup, making the first step in a flow unmistakable.

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 gives strong context: when you need to create an account, use this to initiate, then verify. It mentions 'no captcha, no browser' and the follow-up step, but stops short of listing explicit exclusions or alternative tools. Still, the intended use is clear.

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