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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output includes a completeness score and the cost, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it may have (if any), whether it makes external calls, or any rate limits. For a tool that likely performs external lookups and costs money, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that packs the core function (parse + normalize), scope (US street address), key output (completeness score), and critical cost information ($0.003). Every word carries value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose and cost. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with a single required parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, given the cost and likely external operation, it would be beneficial to mention if the operation is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or any success/failure conditions. The description covers the core, but lacks behavioral context that could affect agent decisions.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the tool has two parameters: 'address' and 'agent_id'. The description clearly implies that the 'address' parameter is the US street address to be parsed, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not mention 'agent_id' or its purpose, leaving that parameter unexplained. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not fully.

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 'US street address parse + normalize with completeness score' clearly states the action (parse and normalize), the resource (US street address), and adds a distinctive output (completeness score). It is specific and distinguishable from siblings, though it doesn't explicitly mention any sibling or scope limitations.

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 implies that the tool is for parsing and normalizing addresses and returns a completeness score, which suggests use cases like checking address validity. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or compared tools. The clear purpose partly implies the usage, but no when-not-to-use is stated.

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