Solve DataDome

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

Beyond the annotations, it is candid about the operational constraint that this is not a one-shot solve: the cookie is bound to one IP and one User-Agent, and violating that replays the block page. It also documents CapSkip's fallback behavior of choosing its own DataDome proxy and returning it as `proxy`, plus the 'dd.t = bv means banned IP' failure mode. That is behavior-hardened context an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true.

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 critical scoping sentence and the required inputs are front-loaded, then the replay instructions follow in a logical order. The prose is dense but nearly every clause carries a constraint the agent must obey; the opening sentence is somewhat overstuffed with block-page signatures that could be tightened.

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?

For a tool with nested proxy objects, five parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: how to get in, what is returned, and how to use the result correctly. Even though an output schema exists, naming the returned `cookie`, `userAgent`, and `proxy` fields directly supports the imperative replay step, so nothing material is missing.

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 each parameter already carries detailed documentation, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only limited extra meaning beyond that, chiefly restating that captcha_url and url are required and reinforcing the IP/User-Agent binding for the proxy parameter.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (pass/solve) and specific resource (a DataDome challenge), and describes the artifact returned (the `datadome` cookie). It also identifies the exact product and block-page signatures (HTTP 403/401, /captcha/ slider, /interstitial/ device check), which distinguishes it from every sibling solver named after a different captcha vendor.

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 rich when-to-use context: it explains what the target block page looks like and how to obtain captcha_url when the iframe src is absent. It further states when to omit a proxy and how to replay the cookie afterwards. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when not to call this tool (e.g., non-DataDome challenges), which keeps it off a 5.

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