nodemaven_build_proxy_url

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses that no network call is made, which is essential behavioral context. It also specifies the return format, includes a failure string pattern, and implies password masking through the output schema. This adds meaningful transparency beyond structured 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?

The description is well-structured with a concise opening sentence, a return schema block, examples, and an exclusion note. It is somewhat long, and the included return schema duplicates what an output schema likely already provides, but every section serves a practical purpose and the first sentence carries the core intent.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, rich schema, sibling alternatives), the description is complete: it states the use case, clarifies the no-network-call behavior, gives concrete examples for parameter usage, and warns when not to use it. The combination of schema, annotations, and description leaves no major 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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable examples mapping natural language to parameters (e.g., 'give me a US proxy string for curl' -> country='us', reveal_credentials=true) and explains the session_id sticky-IP behavior. This goes beyond the schema, but not all 11 parameters receive extra semantic detail.

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's function: 'Build a NodeMaven proxy URL with geo targeting encoded in the username.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools (nodemaven_check_proxy, nodemaven_fetch, etc.) are distinct in purpose, so there is no ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: hand a ready connection string to other tools like curl, Playwright, Scrapy, or requests. It also provides clear alternatives: use nodemaven_check_proxy to verify the IP works, and nodemaven_fetch when page content is needed. This fully satisfies the dimension.

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