datacenter_proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool doesn't make requests itself ('point your own HTTP client'), reveals the proxy endpoint, and mentions the output includes examples. It doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, but for a simple info-return tool this is sufficient.

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 the core function, then the proxy context, then optional behavior. No filler, every 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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives purpose, output type, proxy nature, and optional parameter behavior. It lacks an explicit return structure but that is not essential for selection and invocation.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds some value by explaining target_url yields a ready-to-run curl, but does not mention api_key override. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already conveys parameter meaning.

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 returns Scrapingdog Datacenter Proxy connection details (host, port, username, password) and ready-to-paste examples, with a specific proxy address. It explicitly contrasts with an HTTP API, distinguishing it from sibling scraping tools.

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?

It explains this is a forward proxy, not an HTTP API, which implies when to use it (to get proxy connection info) vs sibling tools (for direct scraping). It also notes the optional target_url behavior for a ready-to-run curl, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use.

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