tor_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only check via 'Check' and 'retrieve' and lists returned fields, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, whether identity is rotated, or behavior when Tor is not connected.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists return fields. It is front-loaded, clear, and contains no filler or repetition.

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 low complexity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete: it states what the tool does and what it returns. No additional context is necessary for safe invocation.

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 input schema is empty and there is no need for parameter documentation. The baseline score for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior and output.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Tor connectivity'), and clearly states it retrieves exit node IP and country along with real IP. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tor_new_identity and rotate_identity, which focus on identity changes.

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 implies the tool is for verifying Tor connectivity and exit node details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like check_anonymity or proxy_check, nor does it mention prerequisites such as Tor being active.

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