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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is structured data, not new information. The description does add one genuine nuance — that the server as a whole cannot create/change/delete addresses, telling the agent not to hunt for a mutation sibling — but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or empty results.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the capability constraint.

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?

For a simple, annotation-covered, zero-required-param list tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete. The only real gap is that it doesn't hint at what an address record contains or that an empty list is a valid result.

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 description coverage is 100%: limit (max 100, default 50) and offset (default 0) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about them, which is acceptable but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List saved addresses") plus the source ("account address book"), which is unambiguous. None of the siblings (rates, shipments, tracking, drop-off points) overlap with address retrieval, so the tool is easily separable even without an explicit sibling callout.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs an address from the address book, e.g. to feed a shipping quote. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no statement about when this is preferable to other lookup paths.

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