proxy_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the tree can be large, which is a useful behavioral trait, and implies a read-only discovery operation. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, what happens on invalid input, or any authentication requirements. For a read-only lookup, this is acceptable 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 long and effectively front-loads the core purpose. Every clause adds value: the list of value types, the explicit link to generate_proxies, the guidance on tree usage, and the size warning. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple lookup nature and fully described schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what results to expect (geo-targeting values), the structure of the tree, and a practical caveat about its size. There is no output schema, but the description implies the content of the response. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact output format (e.g., whether it returns a list of objects or a hierarchy), but this is reasonable for a discovery 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining when to use 'tree' (for specific plan types and ISP codes) and warning about its size. It also clarifies the dependency on planType and the optional filters for states/cities, enriching the parameter semantics without redundancy.

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's purpose: discovering valid geo-targeting values for a proxy plan type. It enumerates the specific value types (countries, states, cities, ASNs, tree) and explicitly links it to the prerequisite step before calling generate_proxies. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like list_proxies or generate_proxies.

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?

It provides clear usage context by stating to use this before generate_proxies and gives precise guidance on when to use the 'tree' level (for Residential Premium / Mobile V2 slugs, ISP codes, and the static datacenter gateway list). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intent is clear. The warning about tree size also helps decision-making.

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