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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: `create` writes a DRAFT (address only works after publication), batching is capped at five per call with roughly a minute of latency and the remainder returned in `remaining` for repeat calls, and `ignore`/`reopen` have explicit reversal semantics. This discloses reversibility, throughput limits, and side effects that readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false do not convey.

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 the fix shape, then ordered from the default case to each action, ending with the user-confirmation instruction. Despite long parenthetical clauses, every sentence carries operational meaning — the batching caveat and the draft-not-live caveat would each cause wrong agent behavior if removed.

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 non-idempotent, non-destructive batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers the preconditions, per-action outcomes, partial-result loop via `remaining`, timing, and the human-in-the-loop step. An agent could call this correctly without further investigation, apart from the unexplained title/topic fields.

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 67% at the top level and the nested `fixes` properties have no per-field descriptions, so the description's explanation of `action` values (redirect/create/ignore/reopen) and of `to` as a same-site path carrying a 301 is genuinely load-bearing. However `title` and `topic` are never explained anywhere, leaving two nested parameters ambiguous.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Fix missing addresses from list_missing_addresses") and describes the fix object shape immediately, so an agent knows this is a batch remediation tool rather than a generic page/redirect creator. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_missing_addresses (the read-side) and from add_redirects/add_page (single-purpose writers).

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?

Establishes the workflow prerequisite (paths come from list_missing_addresses), explains the default behavior (no `action` = carry out the suggested fix), and adds a process rule ("Summarise the plan to the user before calling"). It does not explicitly resolve the overlap with add_redirects or add_page for cases where an agent might prefer those siblings, so it stops just short of full alternative routing.

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