list_proxies

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-like operation via 'list' but does not explicitly state read-only or non-destructive behavior, nor does it disclose pagination or rate limiting. For a listing tool, the lack of explicit safety disclosure is a manageable gap but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences: the first packs the full scope and result fields, the second gives usage guidance. It is tight with no fluff, though the density might be slightly overwhelming; still, each element earns its place.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the returned fields (plan type, bandwidth, expiry, whitelisted IPs, orderId) and covers the plan types. It also mentions pagination-related parameters (limit, offset) via the schema, and the 'every type' phrase sets expectations. The description is reasonably complete for a list tool, missing only explicit notes on pagination behavior.

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% and each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds minimal new parameter meaning—it only mentions the orderId as an output, not a parameter. Thus the description provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool lists all proxy services with specific details and explicitly mentions the orderId for generate_proxies, distinguishing it from the create-oriented sibling. It names the exact resource (proxy services) and the verb (list), making the purpose 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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this first to see which proxy plans are available,' providing a clear use case and ordering relative to generate_proxies. It does not list formal exclusions, but the 'first' directive gives enough context to route the agent correctly.

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