purchase_proxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the 202 Accepted response, status=provisioning, and the 1-2 minute activation delay, which is valuable context. It does not cover failure modes, costs, or required permissions, but the core async behavior is well conveyed.

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 concise, two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only essential details. Every sentence adds value: the main action, the response status, and the polling workflow.

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?

The description covers the async workflow and the return status, which is good, but it fails to explain the only required parameter (plan_id) or any prerequisites like having an existing proxy plan or available funds. Given the low complexity (one param), this is a notable gap preventing full completeness.

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% and the description does not explain the plan_id parameter at all. It does not mention that plan_id is required, how to obtain it, or what it represents. With only one parameter, the description should have provided at least a hint of its meaning, but it is entirely absent.

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 uses a specific verb 'purchase' and resource 'proxy plan', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_proxy_status, renew_proxy, or rotate_proxy_ip. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 explicit follow-up instructions to poll get_proxy_status until status becomes 'active', which is a clear usage workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the purpose is so specific that differentiation is implicit from the sibling list.

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