Get Proxy Usage History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile comprehensively. The description adds the temporal scope (per-day series over 7/30 days) and the type of data (traffic in GB and request count), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination, or error behavior, so it adds only moderate value beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and scope ('per-day traffic and request-count series'). It contains zero fluff and efficiently conveys the essential information.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify how it differs from virtualsms_get_proxy_usage, which could lead an agent to select the wrong tool for a given task. No output format is described, but given the absence of an output schema and the read-only nature, this is a minor gap. The description covers the core functionality but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters: proxy_id is the proxy identifier and range is an enum with 7d/30d and a default. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond restating the time window. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter 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 clearly specifies a per-day traffic (GB) and request-count series for a single proxy over a 7 or 30-day window. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'proxy usage history', making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling virtualsms_get_proxy_usage, relying solely on the name 'history' to imply distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. Given the existence of virtualsms_get_proxy_usage, the description fails to clarify which tool is appropriate for current usage versus historical series, leaving the agent to infer without explicit direction.

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