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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that deletion cannot be undone, that proof documents are removed too, the exact blocker categories that prevent deletion, and what happens to already-registered numbers. It also describes the confirmation-token retry behavior, which is valuable operational context not captured by destructiveHint alone.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, then efficiently layers in destructive scope, blockers, side effects, and return behavior. Every sentence carries operational weight with no 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?

Given the rich schema, destructive annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers safety, prerequisites, failure modes, post-deletion effects, and the success response, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning, mainly reinforcing that deletion is by id and affects associated documents, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: delete an authenticated customer's regulation address by id, along with its proof documents. It clearly distinguishes this destructive removal from neighboring tools like update_address, list_addresses, and delete_proof.

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 gives clear context for when deletion is possible and enumerates several blockers that cause the operation to fail. It does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives such as update_address or delete_proof, but the usage context is strong enough to avoid confusion.

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