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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it never returns the password, it returns null for shared-pool accounts, and it enforces a workspace-scoped read permission. These details materially affect how an agent interprets results and handles authorization.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The key facts are front-loaded: what is returned, what is never returned, the null case, and the access restriction. Every clause adds useful 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return semantics: proxy connection info fields, password exclusion, and null for shared-pool accounts. It also covers the authorization boundary. It doesn't discuss error behavior for unauthorized or nonexistent accounts, but for a simple read-only getter this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the semantic burden for accountId and workspaceId. It connects the params to their real-world meaning: a LinkedIn account and the user's workspace, and implies proxy info is scoped by both. It doesn't describe exact identifier formats, but the parameter names plus this context make the expected values reasonably clear.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the private proxy connection info (host, port, username; never the password) for a LinkedIn account'. It clearly distinguishes this read operation from sibling tools like set_private_proxy and remove_private_proxy by focusing on retrieval and explicitly noting the null case for shared-pool proxies.

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 gives clear context on when the tool is relevant: when reading proxy connection info for a LinkedIn account, and it explains that null indicates a shared proxy. It also states the workspace authorization restriction. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use this instead of set/remove_private_proxy when you only need to view', so the guidance is context-rich but not fully explicit.

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