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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden: it details the response structure (verdict, canonical lines), plan-dependent data (GPS, IRIS, INSEE stats), and a per-call limitation. It also implies a read-only verification without stating it.

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 dense and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and additional details organized logically. Every sentence adds value.

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 thoroughly explains the output format, plan tiers, and constraints. Since there is no output schema, this compensates well, though error handling or authentication are not mentioned.

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 description adds only a constraint 'une adresse par appel' related to the address parameter, but says nothing about 'details' or 'max_results' parameters, leaving their semantics unclear given the schema has no descriptions.

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 verifies and normalizes French postal addresses against the official BAN, returns a match verdict and canonical address lines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_address or get_address_details.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to validate/normalize an address) and even gives a pragmatic guideline to use the returned lines as-is. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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