novada_proxy_datacenter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds operational context: fastest/cost-effective, for non-anti-bot targets, requires env vars, and escalation behavior on block. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches behavioral understanding.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then bullet-style best-for/not-for, params, formats, and agent_instruction. Each section is concise. Minor redundancy between agent_instruction and best-for/not-for, but overall efficient.

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, usage guidelines, parameter summary (though schema covers details), required env vars, and formats. No output schema exists, but return value (proxy credentials) is implied by format options. Lacks explicit note on response structure, but adequate for tool simplicity.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The description's parameter section repeats schema info without adding new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: routing requests through datacenter IPs for high-volume scraping of targets without aggressive anti-bot. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that novada_extract and novada_crawl handle proxy routing internally, and that these credentials are for external HTTP clients.

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 lists best-for (APIs, public data feeds, high-volume non-protected targets), not-for (novada_extract, novada_crawl), and provides an agent_instruction with escalation path (isp → residential if blocked). This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool vs. alternatives.

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