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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so credit here goes to two additions they don't: the per-call price ('$0.01 USDC via x402') and a hint at the output shape ('full name plus the standard abbreviation'). Missing only edge-case behavior for unrecognized or ambiguous input.

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: transformation, illustration, use cases, cost. Front-loaded with the core purpose and free of 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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, input flexibility, output shape, and payment requirement. It stops short of describing failure modes for invalid or non-US input, which matters for an openWorld tool.

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 of 3 applies. The description usefully shows the fuzzy input forms the 'state' parameter accepts, but says nothing about the optional 'algorithm' parameter or what variants like 'ai-medium' change.

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 and resource ('US state and province standardization') and illustrates with concrete input variations ('Calif', 'Cal', 'CA') mapping to full name plus abbreviation. The resource scope makes it distinguishable from interzoid_city_standard and interzoid_country_standard, though those siblings are never named or explicitly excluded.

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 use-case context ('address cleansing, form normalization, consistent reporting'), which orients the agent, but offers no when-not guidance and never mentions the near-neighbor tools (city_standard, country_standard) that an agent might confuse it with.

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