List candidate proxies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses that no live network testing occurs, that results are merged/deduped across sources, and that ordering is cache-first with previously confirmed-fast proxies prioritized. It does not cover result freshness/staleness beyond forceRefresh or any rate limits, leaving modest gaps.

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, zero filler, and the core behavior plus ordering rule is front-loaded before the routing hint. Every clause 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers behavior, ordering, and sibling routing adequately. Only minor gaps remain, such as what a returned entry contains or how stale the cache can be.

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 four parameters (limit, country, protocol, forceRefresh) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the country/protocol filtering, adding no format or interaction detail beyond what structured data provides. 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 and resource ('Lists merged, deduped proxies from all sources') plus scope details (country/protocol filtering, cache-first ordering). An agent can distinguish it from find_proxy and check_proxy purely from the text.

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 the alternative and the selecting condition: 'use find_proxy when you need a proxy that is actually confirmed working right now.' It also clarifies what this tool does not do (no live testing), which is the key routing signal.

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