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

With no annotations, the description does the work: it discloses the return shape (resolved address or null, plus the street's postal-code segments) and the input precondition that makes resolution possible. Auth/rate-limit behavior is unstated, but for a read-only resolution call the key behavioral facts are covered.

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?

Three sentences, no filler: purpose first, then the key parameter constraint, then the return contract. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description spells out the return values including the null case and the auxiliary postal-code segments list, and documents how to obtain valid input. Nothing needed to call this 2-parameter read tool correctly is missing.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an increment by adding provenance and validity info for art_id (must come from suggest_address, 0 is unresolvable) that the schema's terse 'Street id from suggest_address' does not fully convey.

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 (resolve) and resource (7-digit postal code / CP7) scoped to a street + door number, which is clearly distinct from suggest_address (id lookup) and postal_code_info. The parenthetical 'CP7' pins down the exact artifact, so an agent knows what it gets back.

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?

Explains the prerequisite chain explicitly: art_id must come from suggest_address, and art_id 0 (a locality/municipality) cannot be resolved, which is an effective implicit exclusion. It does not name an alternative when the user already has a postal code, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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