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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not explain whether the address is appended or replaces an existing one, whether the subject must already exist, or any side effects. Since annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, no additional credit is earned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the operation with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 a fully described input schema and an output schema present, the minimal description is mostly adequate for a simple add-address operation. However, it omits usage context and behavioral nuances, such as how this relates to existing addresses or to the update_subject sibling, leaving some gaps.

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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific action ('attaches') and resource ('postal address') directed at an 'SMI subject', and the resource clearly distinguishes it from the many smi_add_subject_* siblings (phone, email, alias, etc.). It is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this tool over smi_update_subject or any sibling, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives. An agent must infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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