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

Annotations already flag idempotentHint=false, and the description makes that concrete and actionable: every accepted call yields a new identity, so a blind retry after a timeout creates duplicates and the caller should reconcile first. It also discloses that the record is private, which is behavioral context not present in the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consequence model. 'Full submitted geography' is slightly jargon-y but no sentence is filler.

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 output schema means return values need not be explained, and the non-idempotency is well covered. However, for a create tool with entirely undocumented parameters, the description should still clarify what label and referenceRelease are for.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it never mentions 'label' at all and only gestures at geography via 'full submitted geography'. It does not explain the required referenceRelease or the addressText length constraints, leaving the caller dependent on the raw schema.

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?

'Create a private address bookmark with full submitted geography' gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, so it is clearly distinct from getUserAddress/updateUserAddress/deleteUserAddress. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 retry advice ('after an unknown outcome, reconcile your address book before retrying') is a useful operational guideline, but nothing states when to choose this over updateUserAddress or createUserSearchFilter, or any prerequisite such as needing an existing account or reference release.

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