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

Although annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful context: a postal code is required, no company data is saved, the operation is idempotent, and it falls under a pre-authorized confirmation boundary. These are behavioral traits that go beyond the annotations, though the description could mention rate limits or output token format.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then proceeds through prerequisites, data handling, canonicality, idempotency, and a confirmation boundary. However, the sentence about confirmation is overly long and packed with a list of unrelated operations, which reduces clarity and conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers the essential prerequisites, data handling, and idempotency. However, it omits the placeId parameter and the _corply_context object, which are important for correct invocation, and it does not describe the signed selection token format.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It states that a postal code is required, which is not in the schema (the schema only requires placeId). This adds crucial missing context, but the description does not mention placeId or _corply_context, so it partially compensates. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage.

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) plus resource (selected Google place) and enumerates the outputs (verified full address, structured components, signed selection token). This clearly distinguishes it from suggest_addresses and show_address_picker 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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (authenticated Corply connection) and the required input (postal code), and clarifies that no company is required. It does not, however, cross-reference the sibling suggest_addresses or show_address_picker to say when to pick this over them.

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