Proxy geo targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results narrow as parameters accumulate, and 'Each row shows available nodes' signals the shape of the payload. It does not mention limits or what happens with an invalid region, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four tight clauses plus one sentence, front-loaded with purpose before the cascade. No filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the cascade and per-parameter roles adequately. Remaining gaps are minor edge behavior (invalid inputs, result caps), which a 4 tolerates.

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 coverage is only 33% (just the country ISO field), so the description has to compensate, and it largely does: it assigns role and accepted level to each parameter and gives concrete example values ('US', 'California', 'Los Angeles') that imply format for region and city. It is not fully systematic about casing or expected value format, so a 5 is not warranted.

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+resource ('geo discovery for shared-proxy list targeting') and explicitly names the two sibling tools it feeds (create_proxy_list, update_proxy_list), so an agent can distinguish it from search_proxies or the list_* tools. The cascading nature of the resource is clear from the first clause.

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 cascade examples (no params -> countries; country=US -> regions; +region -> cities; +city -> ISPs) tell the agent exactly how to escalate the query, which is strong implied when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming an alternative for a flat lookup, so it does not reach the explicit-alternatives bar.

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