search_proxies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the nature of plans (shared rotating IPs, billed by data), what results contain, and that region/city/ISP targeting happens elsewhere. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and packs essential information into a compact structure.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description lists the exact result fields (plan id, location, data allowance, duration, price), which fully covers return value expectations. It also clarifies post-purchase configuration, making the tool's scope clear and complete for a search operation.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that results include data allowance, which relates to 'min_data_gb', but it does not provide additional parameter usage details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 opens with 'Search available mobile proxy plans' which is a specific verb+resource. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying 'shared rotating mobile IPs, billed by data', clearly separating it from SMS, eSIM, and dedicated country searches.

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 clearly implies this is the tool for searching mobile proxy plans and notes that targeting is configured later via 'create_proxy_list', giving a 'when not' clue. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like 'search_sms_services', so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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