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

Description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: immediate charging, requirement for explicit user confirmation. Aligns with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes warnings and parameter hints. Slightly dense but every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter constraints, and return behavior. No output schema, but description states return of full connection details, which is adequate.

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?

Clarifies parameter relationships (country accepts ISO or id_country, geoid for geo-precise orders, period_days allowed values). Schema has 78% coverage, so description adds useful context.

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 states the tool purchases one or more mobile proxies and adds them to the account, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_proxies and get_balance.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: always call get_balance and get_price first, and use estimate_only for a dry-run. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

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

Discloses that the proxy login/password remains unchanged, that it's a physical location swap, and that a per-proxy cooldown applies. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are non-contradictory; description adds behavioral detail beyond them.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter guidance, then optional verification and cooldown. Every sentence adds necessary 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?

Covers usage, parameters, behavior, and constraints (cooldown). No output schema but operation is clear. Could mention error handling or cooldown expiration check, but still sufficient given schema coverage and annotations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters (e.g., geoid is most specific, pass at least one) and the effect of check_after_change.

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 states the tool swaps the underlying modem of a proxy to a different country/operator without buying a new proxy, distinguishing it from siblings like rotate_ip and buy_proxy.

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?

Describes required parameters (at least one of country, id_country, geoid, operator) and optional check_after_change. Mentions cooldown. Could be improved with explicit when-not to use compared to rotate_ip or buy_proxy.

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

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

Description adds detail beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by stating it returns balance in RUB and can_payout for partner status. No contradictions; simple read operation fully disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with primary function, then usage advice. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Fully adequate for a zero-parameter read-only tool. Covers purpose, return value components, and usage context. No output schema needed.

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?

No parameters; baseline 4. Description adds meaning by explaining what the return value contains (main funds, can_payout) though no param info needed.

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?

Description specifies it returns current account balance in RUB plus optional can_payout amount, with clear verb-resource pair 'returns balance'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like buy_proxy.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use BEFORE buy_proxy to confirm sufficient funds, and warns that buy_proxy will fail with 'Insufficient balance' otherwise. Provides clear when-to-use and consequence.

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

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

Discloses caching behavior (60s server-side, 5 min client-side). Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) align with description. No contradictions.

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 sentences conveying all essential info: return data, use cases, caching. No fluff.

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?

Covers return data, usage contexts, required geoid for buy_proxy, caching, and filtering. Complete given optional single parameter and no output schema.

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 single parameter 'country' is described in both schema and description with similar detail. Description adds usage context (filter by ISO code) but does not significantly expand beyond schema.

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?

Explicitly states it returns all geo-locations with specific fields (geoid, caption, ISO, free-modem count) for proxy availability. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_proxies by focusing on locations.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: recommend location, validate before buy_proxy/change_geo, filter by country. Mentions geoid needed for buy_proxy, linking to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral details: returns quotes for all durations, and country accepts ISO codes or numeric IDs. This is helpful but does not cover error handling or response format, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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 sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage guidance, and parameter constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no extraneous 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 price-lookup tool with annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, when to use, and parameter hints. It could mention output structure but is not necessary given the straightforward behavior.

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 50% (only country is described). The description reinforces the country format and adds context about durations, but does not explain the currency parameter beyond its enum values. Baseline is 3 due to moderate coverage, and the description adds marginal value.

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 states it returns price quotes for proxies in a given country across all available durations, and positions it as a pre-purchase cost check. This distinguishes it from siblings like buy_proxy, list_proxies, and get_balance, providing a specific verb-resource-scope combination.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool before buy_proxy to inform the user about cost. While it does not list all when-not-to-use scenarios, the single sentence provides clear context for its intended use relative to its primary sibling.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, consistent with a read operation. Description adds performance trade-off for check_spam mode (~3s extra). No contradiction.

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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with core function and optional mode. Every sentence adds value.

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, description could hint at return structure (IP address, spam list names). However, for a status check tool it's adequate given sibling context and annotations.

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 covers both parameters 100%. Description adds that proxy_id comes from list_proxies and check_spam is slower but assesses IP quality, providing context beyond schema.

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?

Title and description clearly state the tool returns current external IP and optionally checks spam blacklists. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for verification of proxy status.

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?

Explicit usage context: 'Use to verify a fresh rotation succeeded, or to decide if you need to rotate again because the IP is dirty.' No explicit when-not-to-use but clear context suggests alternatives like rotate_ip for rotation.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description reveals that expired proxies are already dropped server-side but the active_only filter provides an extra client-side check. It also discloses the returned fields (host, port, login, password, geo, operator, expiration).

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—three sentences each serving a distinct purpose: what it returns, when to use it, and parameter details. No redundant or unclear language.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return content. It covers all three parameters, usage context, and a dependency (get_country_list). No gaps for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, but the description adds context: the type parameter lists enums, id_country is numeric and requires get_country_list for conversion, and active_only defaults to true with explanation. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns all proxies owned by the user with full connection details, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_proxy_status or get_balance. It explicitly says to use this first when the user asks about 'my 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 provides explicit guidance: use this first for any query about 'my proxies', to find a specific proxy, or to obtain a proxy_id for other tools. It also advises using get_country_list for ISO codes, offering a clear alternative.

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

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

Adds detailed behavioral context beyond annotations: timing (~3-10 seconds), cost (included), auto-check with verify (~1-2s), and mobile-only constraint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste. Core purpose first, then relevant details. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete for a tool with no output schema: describes return value (new IP), timing, cost, constraints, and verification option. No gaps.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by specifying proxy_id source (list_proxies) and behavioral consequence of verify (adds ~1-2s).

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 states the verb 'Forces' and the resource 'mobile proxy to acquire a new IP address', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it only works on mobile proxies (proxy_type=0).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('between scraping requests, account creations') and when not ('Only works on mobile proxies'). Does not directly name alternatives, but sibling context provides that.

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