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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context by disclosing the backing store (~/.polopan/region.json), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, auth requirements, or behavior when the file is missing/empty — so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by scope and the optional filter. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. Since there is no output schema, it could have stated what a returned address entry looks like (fields, ordering), which is the one remaining gap.

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 single 'country' parameter (ISO-2 or natural name, optional) is already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the filter without adding syntax, matching rules, or fallback behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (list saved customer delivery addresses) and even names the storage location (~/.polopan/region.json), so the agent knows exactly what collection is being read. It is clearly distinct from write siblings like address.save/address.delete, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from address.get_current, leaving a small routing ambiguity.

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?

The phrase 'optionally filtered by country' implies the intended usage (enumerate all saved addresses, narrow by country), but it is framed as a parameter note rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over address.get_current or what happens when no filter is supplied, so usage is only implied.

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