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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful operational detail beyond that: continuation via the previous response's next token and the limit default/range. No contradiction is present.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then pagination; no filler. The phrase 'resolution and source attribution' is slightly dense but still earns its place.

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 and rich annotations, the description only needs to cover listing scope and pagination. It does so adequately, though it omits ordering or whether archived addresses are excluded.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain both after and limit, including continuation and limit defaults, but leaves the after token format and invalid-token behavior implicit; the stated limit default (25) also differs from the schema's null default.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('your private addresses'), and the plural framing differentiates it from the singular getUserAddress. It also hints at returned fields ('resolution and source attribution'), though it does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative.

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?

It explains how to paginate but gives no guidance on when to use this list endpoint rather than getUserAddress or another address-related sibling. Usage is only implied by 'List your private addresses'.

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