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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-read-only behavior; the description adds useful behavior beyond them by noting partial-update semantics and a confirmation step before delete. It does not discuss permissions, permanence, or response behavior, so not 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and parent scope, then actions and important operational notes. No redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a 12-parameter CRUD tool with rich schema and destructive annotations, the description covers the key invocation context: parent entity, actions, partial updates, delete confirmation, and avoiding redundant list calls. It could be slightly more complete about return behavior or required identifiers, but no output schema exists to carry that.

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 high (92%), so the schema carries most parameter detail. The description still adds meaning by indicating the parent entity is a contact or company via contactId/companyId and by explaining that update omits unchanged fields.

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 the resource (postal addresses on a contact or company) and enumerates the four operations. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic contact/company management, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with them.

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 supplies concrete usage rules: update leaves omitted fields unchanged, delete requires confirmation, and a contact/company fetched by id already includes addresses, which discourages redundant list calls. It stops short of naming alternative tools or fully spelling out when to choose this over contacts_manage/companies_manage.

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