novada_proxy_static

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'same IP every request', 'dedicated ISP IP that never changes', 'same session_id always returns the same IP'. This explains the static nature beyond annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 bold labels and bullet points, but slightly verbose. Repeats 'same IP every request' in both the intro and agent_instruction. However, front-loads key information and is easy to scan. Could be trimmed slightly.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains return formats: 'url', 'env', 'curl'. Lists required env vars (NOVADA_PROXY_USER, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is a static ISP proxy. Covers prerequisites, use cases, and constraints for a complete understanding.

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%, and the description adds meaning: explains that country determines distinct IP pool, session_id determines dedicated IP, format options ('url', 'env', 'curl'). Provides additional context like 'each country has a distinct pool of dedicated IPs' and 'maxLength: 64' for session_id.

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: 'Route requests through a dedicated static ISP IP that never changes'. It specifies the verb ('Route'), resource ('static ISP IP'), and distinguishing scope ('same IP every request for a given session_id + country'). This differentiates it from sibling proxy tools like novada_proxy_datacenter or novada_proxy_dedicated.

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?

Explicit 'Best for:' and 'Not for:' sections provide clear guidance. 'Best for: Account management, login-dependent workflows, platforms that flag IP changes as suspicious.' 'Not for: novada_extract or novada_crawl — they handle proxy routing internally.' Also specifies that credentials are for own HTTP clients, not internal tools.

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