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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description is consistent: 'Récupère' is a read operation. It adds useful context by noting the id provenance and that the details are inline in the other two tools, plus a plan constraint. No contradictions.

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?

Three short sentences; the main action is front-loaded, followed by drill-down context and the plan requirement. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 a single parameter, a full output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential call context: what it returns, where the id comes from, how it relates to siblings, and a plan constraint. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly 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?

The schema already describes address_id as the id returned by verify_address/search_address, and the description repeats that same provenance without adding new format, constraints, or examples. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Récupère'), a resource ('le détail complet d'une adresse'), and a required identifier, immediately distinguishing it from search/verify tools. It explicitly frames itself as a drill-down tool and names the source tools, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

It identifies the relevant siblings (search_address, verify_address) and states that this is a drill-down tool whose details are already inline in those tools, implying when the dedicated call is or isn't needed. It also mentions a minimum plan (Discovery), but does not give an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' rule.

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