Resolve the exact 7-digit postal code (CP7) for a street and door number. art_id comes from suggest_address. Returns resolved address (or null) and the list of postal-code segments of that street.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| art_id | Yes | Street id from suggest_address | |
| numero | Yes | Door number, e.g. '196' or '27A' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description correctly carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the return behavior, including the null case ('returns resolved address (or null)') and the additional list of postal-code segments. It does not mention side effects or auth, but this appears to be a simple lookup operation.
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 two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by input provenance and return behavior. Every sentence 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?
This is a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the inputs, the expected result, the null case, and the additional segment list, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 schema already documents art_id and numero well. The description reinforces 'art_id comes from suggest_address' and the door-number concept, but adds little 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 names a specific operation ('Resolve the exact 7-digit postal code') and a clear resource scope ('for a street and door number'). It also mentions that art_id comes from suggest_address, which helps distinguish this tool from the suggest-address and postal-code-info siblings.
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 clear context by indicating that art_id is obtained from suggest_address, implying this is the follow-up step after address suggestion. It does not explicitly contrast with postal_code_info, but the intended use case is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct lookup workflow: postal code to address info, free text to autocomplete suggestions, and street/door to exact postal code resolution. There is no meaningful overlap, and the dependency between suggest_address and resolve_postal_code is clearly explained.
All tool names are snake_case and descriptive, and two follow a verb_noun pattern. postal_code_info deviates slightly by using a noun_info structure, but this is minor and does not create confusion.
Three tools is well-scoped for a Portuguese address and postal code service. Each tool covers a necessary part of the lookup/resolution workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full expected lifecycle for this domain: forward autocomplete, exact postal code resolution, and reverse lookup by postal code. The workflow from suggest_address to resolve_postal_code is coherent, and no obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent.