novada_proxy_isp

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by detailing that the proxy looks like a real home user and requires specific environment variables. It also explains output format options, which is not covered by 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 headings and bullet points, making key information easy to find. It is concise without unnecessary words, and 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (all well-documented in schema), no output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, environment variable requirements, agent instructions, and output formats, making it fully 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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description restates parameters in a summary line but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states that the tool routes requests through ISP-assigned IPs that resemble real home users, specifying its ideal use for social media and ecommerce platforms. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as novada_proxy_datacenter and novada_proxy_residential.

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 clear best-for and not-for sections, explicitly stating it is not for novada_extract or novada_crawl as they handle proxy routing internally. It also advises escalating to novada_proxy_residential for stronger anti-bot needs, offering explicit alternatives.

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