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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context -- results are ordered by relevance and returned in USPS notation -- but says nothing about rate limits, auth failure behavior, or result shape beyond ordering. Useful but modest value beyond annotations.

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 purpose and the geo_id handoff are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by an ordering note and a concrete example. It is dense but each part earns its place. Slightly long for the payload, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does: records carrying `geo_id`, relevance-ordered in USPS notation. It also ties the output to the downstream workflow. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and error cases, but for this tool the essentials are present.

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 100%, so `q`, `size`, `cursor`, and `_apiKey` are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema (the example merely echoes the schema examples). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Resolve a US address to Shovels records') and immediately names the artifact produced (`geo_id`). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining how its output feeds shovels_permits_search / shovels_contractors_search, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any 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 makes the usage context explicit: this is the resolution step whose `geo_id` scopes the two sibling search tools. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or other alternatives, so it lands below a full 5.

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