novada_proxy_dedicated

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

Annotations (readOnly, idempotent) are complemented by description details: exclusive IP, no sharing, session-to-IP mapping, and requirement for env vars. No contradiction; the description adds context beyond 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 clear sections (purpose, best/not for, params, formats, agent_instruction, requires). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description explains output formats (url, env, curl) and mentions environment variable requirements. It adequately describes the tool's purpose and usage, though it could mention error handling or rate limits. Given the annotations and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description adds value by summarizing parameters: 'url (optional)', 'session_id (REQUIRED — maps to your exclusive dedicated IP)', and listing formats. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that the tool routes requests through an exclusive datacenter IP with clean reputation, distinguishing it from siblings like novada_proxy_residential. It specifies the verb 'route' and resource 'requests', and explicitly indicates when not to use it (novada_extract/crawl).

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 provides 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming alternatives (novada_proxy_residential) and explaining that novada_extract/crawl handle proxy routing internally. Also mentions required environment variables, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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