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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that this hits the authoritative national register and what identifiers it yields, but says nothing about result ordering/relevance, matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact), or result-count behavior beyond the schema's limit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then return content, then the handoff hint. Nothing is wasted and the structure mirrors the order an agent needs the information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description correctly covers the identity of the source and the cross-tool handoff. For a search tool, though, the absence of any statement about matching behavior, relevance ordering, or how to broaden/narrow results leaves the agent guessing in a low-parameter, ambiguous domain.

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 only 50%: the query param has an inline example, but limit has no description beyond its numeric bounds. The prose adds no parameter meaning at all — nothing about query format, minimum specificity, or what limit controls — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Search") and a precisely scoped resource ("the official Danish address register (DAR)"), and clarifies what comes back (address ids and coordinates). It also differentiates itself from address_report, making it distinguishable from at least one sibling 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?

The description gives clear downstream guidance — pass an id to address_report for building/property data — which is genuinely useful workflow routing. However, it never states when to use this search versus transformative or positional siblings such as cleanse_address or reverse_geocode, so usage is only implied for those cases.

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