Proxy health history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. Beyond that, the description adds real value by explaining what each mode returns and that the vendor scoreboard is derived from 'your own checks' — a scoping detail not present in annotations. It does not discuss retention window or how 'recent' is bounded, which leaves a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the branching condition ('With a proxy id... Without...'), and each clause carries information about returned fields. The trailing 'Read-only.' is wasted since annotations already say so. Otherwise there is no padding.

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, the description does the work of describing returns: per-proxy status/latency/country over time and per-vendor success/speed/blocklist rates. Combined with the mode branching, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly and interpret the result, with only the 'limit' parameter left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden: it explains that 'id' selects a single proxy and that omitting it switches the tool to pool-wide mode, which is exactly the semantics an agent needs. The second parameter, 'limit' (10-200), is not mentioned at all, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names the resource (proxy health history) and clearly splits the tool into two modes: per-proxy checks when an id is given, and pool/vendor-level health otherwise. It lists the concrete fields returned (status, latency, country, success rate, speed, blocklist rate), so an agent knows what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with check_proxy or list_proxies, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 two-mode structure gives explicit conditional guidance: pass an id for one proxy's history, omit it for the pool plus vendor scoreboard. That is clear context for choosing how to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer check_proxy for a live test rather than historical reads).

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