Solve a DataDome challenge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return shape ({ success, payload, headers }), the cost per call, and the fact that it bypasses a headless browser. It lacks explicit mention of authentication or error cases, but is sufficiently transparent for typical use.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and wastes no words. It efficiently lists challenge types and their inputs.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure. It covers main use cases and differentiates challenge types. Minor gaps: no mention of error responses or prerequisites like authentication, but overall adequate for a solve tool.

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 descriptions, but the tool description adds crucial context: which parameters apply to which challenge type and how 'params' is forwarded. This goes beyond the schema and helps an agent select parameters correctly.

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 generates a DataDome clearance payload and specifies three challenge types (interstitial, captcha, tags) with required inputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like solve_incapsula by naming, and from account/balance tools by function.

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 explicitly explains when to use each challenge type and what parameters to provide (e.g., 'captcha: provide captcha_link'). It also mentions cost. However, it does not directly contrast with solve_incapsula or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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