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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, non-idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), and the description adds real value on top: the requirement_id pre-check returns warnings instead of failing later, the country normally must match the DID country, and address data must never be invented. It still does not say what happens on duplicate submissions or describe auth/rate constraints, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and flow position, and nearly every sentence carries actionable guidance (sequencing, pre-check, data-integrity rule). It is on the long side for a create tool, but the density is justified rather than padding.

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 no output schema, the description still explains the return behavior (warnings from the requirement pre-check) and covers prerequisites, ordering, and constraints an agent needs to invoke it correctly in the DID flow.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not state — country_iso usually must match the DID country from the requirement — and reinforces the pre-check semantics of requirement_id.

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 (create) plus the exact resource (a regulation address under an existing identity of the authenticated customer) and situates it as step 4 of the DID registration flow. This cleanly distinguishes it from update_address, delete_address and validate_address among the siblings.

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?

Explicitly sequences the tool: comes after list_requirements, create_identity and proof upload via create_regulation_upload_link, and must be followed by create_regulation_upload_link and create_address_verification. It also names the fallback (ask the user for real data) and clarifies the end-customer case is normal, not an exception.

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