Check a specific proxy

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the check performs a real network request through the proxy (not a mock), which implies latency and network egress, but says nothing about failure semantics, whether it throws or returns a status, or what the result contains. This is meaningful but incomplete disclosure for a validation tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose and mechanism come first, with the when-to-use guidance following immediately.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at what a successful/failed validation returns (boolean, latency, error detail). It covers inputs and usage well but leaves the result shape and failure behavior unstated, which is a real gap for a check 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (proxy, testUrl, timeoutMs) are already documented with defaults and constraints in the schema. The description's example URL format duplicates the schema rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (validates) and resource (single specific proxy), and explains the mechanism ('by making a real request through it to a target URL'). Example proxy URLs make the expected input format concrete and clearly distinguish it from find_proxy/list_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?

Explicitly names two use cases — testing a proxy you already have, and re-checking a specific site through a proxy that find_proxy returned. The alternative tool is named and the selection condition is clear.

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