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

The description discloses that the tool is 'proxied' and instructs sending a session_token, which adds useful context beyond the annotations about an external address service and persistent session state. However, it does not explain side effects, rate limits, or data handling details, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 very short and contains no filler. The key constraints (proxied, session_token, quote scope) are front-loaded. However, it closely mirrors the title and lacks enough substantive content to be considered a fully crafted description.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not describe the return value shape or the expected suggestion list format. It also fails to mention the natural follow-up call to resolve_address or explain how to obtain the session_token. An agent would struggle to integrate this into a complete autocomplete flow.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters clearly: input is what the customer typed, and session_token is an opaque string kept for the session. The description only repeats the instruction to send session_token and does not add any meaningful new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an address autocomplete function and adds a scope restriction ('quote'), which gives an agent a basic sense of purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling resolve_address, relying on the tool name to imply the distinction.

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 description provides almost no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Scope: quote' hints at a contextual boundary but does not explain when to prefer suggest_addresses over resolve_address or how the two interact. There are no exclusions or explicit conditions.

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