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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns up to 10 candidates ranked by Meilisearch score, and mentions the cost per call. It does not describe failure modes or whether the operation is read-only, but for a geocoding lookup these are less critical. The candidate limit and ranking are useful behavioral details.

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 concise, with purpose front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, then return and pricing details. Formatting with a line break and bold for the price improves scannability. Every sentence carries information, and there is no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure is covered elsewhere. The description covers purpose, when to use it, candidate limit, ranking, and cost. It does not mention error handling or alternative tools, but for a simple geocoding endpoint with one parameter, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single parameter 'address' has a schema description ('Freeform address string') with an example, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantics beyond restating that it is freeform and used for geocoding. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds marginal value.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('freeform address string to candidate G-NAF identifiers'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling geocode_suburb, which would handle suburb-level inputs. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: before calling any /v1/properties/{gnaf_id}/... route because those require a GNAF. This is clear usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives (like geocode_suburb) or when not to use it, leaving a slight gap in routing decisions.

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