Generate Proxy Connection Endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a valuable behavioral nuance: sub-country targeting bills at 2x GB on non-premium pools, free on residential_premium. This cost implication is beyond the annotations and helps agents anticipate side effects.

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 core function and scope. It packs essential details (targeting, session, protocol, formats, read-only nature) without fluff, and the billing caveat is placed at the end to avoid distraction.

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 9 parameters, 4 enums, and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what it builds, that it is read-only, the billing implication, and the dashboard compatibility. It doesn't describe output structure, but since no output schema exists, the description could hypothetically add that; however, the examples are in the parameter values and the format enum, so it's reasonably complete.

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 9 parameters are documented in the schema. The description largely restates these options (formats, targeting levels) without adding new semantic details beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 composes proxy connection strings with specific options (targeting, session, protocol, format). It explicitly clarifies it does not purchase or change anything server-side, distinguishing it from siblings like buy_proxy or set_proxy_targeting.

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 provides clear context: it is for generating endpoint strings for an owned proxy, and it states it does not alter server state. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, though the distinction from set_proxy_targeting is implied by the read-only nature.

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