Récupère le détail complet d'une adresse via son identifiant (id renvoyé par search_address ou verify_address). Outil de drill-down : les détails sont déjà inclus inline par les deux autres outils. Plan minimum : Discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it retrieves details (implying read-only) but omits information about permissions, rate limits, or what constitutes 'détail complet'. The inclusion of 'Plan minimum : Discovery' is unclear and adds no value.
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 long, efficiently stating the core purpose and context. The 'Plan minimum' phrase could be removed without loss, but the description remains front-loaded and reasonably concise.
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?
The description explains the tool's role as a drill-down but fails to describe the output format or field details, which is significant given the absence of an output schema. It also does not mention any limitations or prerequisites beyond the ID source.
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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining that address_id comes from search or verify, giving meaningful context about its source and format.
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 retrieves complete address details using an ID from search_address or verify_address, distinguishing it as a drill-down tool distinct from sibling search/verify tools.
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 specifies where to obtain the required address_id (from search_address or verify_address) and frames the tool as a drill-down, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: search, verify, nearby lookup, company details, routing, matrix, etc. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference similar tools (e.g., 'préfère route_matrix' for bulk distances, 'préfère verify_address' for confirmation), making the boundaries clear.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_address, get_company_details, verify_address). The exception is 'route_matrix', which is a noun phrase and breaks the pattern, though it remains readable and predictable enough.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped within the ideal range. Each tool provides a meaningful capability without overlap or redundancy, covering address, company, routing, and locality data.
The server covers the core read-only workflows for its domain: address search/verification/nearby, company search/details, route calculation/matrix, and locality search/list. No obvious gaps or dead ends exist for a data lookup service.