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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses per-item resolution behavior, rate limiting (~50 per 10 seconds per IP, N items = N requests), result ordering, and the full status taxonomy with the exact meaning of ok/ambiguous/not_found and their cp7/suggestion values.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and alternative routing, then progressively details statuses and limits. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the status enumeration is long enough that a reader must work through several clauses to extract the core contract.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return shape (id, q, status, cp7, suggestion), ordering, and status-dependent null values. Combined with the batch and rate-limit rules, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: how each q is interpreted (door number picks exact postal code, postal code looked up as such), the echo behavior of id including null when omitted, and the returned result fields.

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 and resource ('Check a list of Portuguese addresses in one call') and immediately scopes it as bulk-oriented. It explicitly contrasts with suggest_address for single addresses, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (CRM column, order import, customer base before shipping/mailing) and an explicit alternative with its trigger condition: 'For a single address use suggest_address.' Batching guidance (up to 100 items, send ~50) further directs correct invocation.

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