generate_proxies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that credentials are included, output is ready-to-use, and supports multiple protocols/formats. It mentions 'active proxy services' implying authorization is required, but does not detail error cases or quota usage. For a generation tool with no destructive behavior, this is adequate but could mention potential side effects like consuming service quota.

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, front-loaded with purpose and usage hints. No redundancy, and each sentence adds value. The structure is efficient and scannable for an agent.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: support types, targeting, rotation, protocols, formats, and prerequisites. It references companion tools for required data and gives an example (curl -x). While it doesn't enumerate all parameter interactions, the schema compensates with detailed descriptions. The description is comprehensive enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'geo targeting', 'rotating or sticky sessions') that aligns with parameters but does not provide additional per-parameter semantics. The only extra value is referencing list_proxies for orderId, which is helpful but not sufficient to raise above baseline.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Generate ready-to-use proxy endpoint strings' with explicit types (residential, mobile, datacenter, ISP, IPv6) and features (geo targeting, rotation, protocols, formats). It distinguishes from siblings like list_proxies and proxy_locations by specifying that it generates strings rather than lists or location data.

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 instructs prerequisites: 'Use list_proxies first to get the orderId, and proxy_locations for valid targeting codes.' This gives actionable redirects to sibling tools and clarifies when this tool is appropriate, leaving no ambiguity about initial setup.

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