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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: page size defaults and bounds (default 25, 1 to 100) and the cursor contract ('pass the returned next as after'), which tells the agent how to iterate rather than guessing.

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 what is listed before the pagination mechanics. Every clause carries operational information an agent needs; nothing 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 tool is simple (two optional paging params) and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted. The description covers scope and pagination adequately; only minor details such as sort order or behavior on an invalid cursor are absent.

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 the load, and it largely does: it explains that limit controls page size with a default of 25 and a 1-100 range, and that after is the token returned as next. It does not explain that after must be an opaque 'uaddr_' prefixed cursor or what happens if a stale cursor is passed, leaving a small gap against the strict pattern in the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the signed-in user's saved addresses') and adds scope detail ('with their resolved locations'), making it clearly distinct from the singular getUserAddress or the mutating createUserAddress/deleteUserAddress siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing from the plural/read-only wording.

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 implied by the 'signed-in user' scoping and the pagination instruction, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement of when to prefer getUserAddress for a single address or createUserAddress for adding one. The pagination clause is practical guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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