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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the record must be *owned* by the caller (an authorization constraint) and the response carries "complete resolution geography and source attribution." It omits what happens when the ID is not owned or not found.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope come first and the return-content clause follows. Slightly dense phrasing ("complete resolution geography and source attribution") costs a little clarity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety semantics. Combined with the ownership constraint and content summary, this is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only error/permission behavior is left implicit.

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 compensate; it does so only partially by implying the addressId must reference an address the caller owns. The regex pattern in the schema conveys the ID format, but nothing explains ownership failure modes or that the ID is a uaddr_ prefixed identifier.

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 ("Read") and a precisely scoped resource ("an owned private address"), which separates it from sibling tools like listUserAddresses or getPublicOverview. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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: "owned private address" with a required addressId signals a single-record lookup, and the contrast with list/create/delete/update address siblings is inferable. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative is given.

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