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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds non-annotation context beyond that: the operation 'requires approval by default', which tells the agent an approval flow applies. It stops short of noting irreversibility or cascade effects.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core intent front-loaded before the destructive/approval caveat.

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 need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key behavioral fact (default approval requirement), leaving only minor gaps like irreversibility, which the destructive hint largely covers.

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%, and both parameters (address_id, approval_id) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no param-level syntax or format detail beyond that.

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 clear verb+resource (remove an address = delete), and the operation is self-evidently distinct from siblings addresses.create/list/update. It is framed as a usage trigger rather than a direct definition, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 a trigger condition ('when the user wants an address removed') which implies when to use it, but names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g. use addresses.update to modify rather than remove). Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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