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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely new behavior and cost context: ambiguous input returns suggestions, and the call is free/no payment, which matters given the paid nearby-search sibling. It does not describe rate limits or pagination, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then edge-case behavior and provenance. Mild redundancy: 'free' is asserted twice (opening sentence and 'Free, no payment needed'), and the first clause largely restates the title.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety semantics. The description still supplies what structured fields cannot: the data source, license, cost model, and ambiguous-input behavior, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the single 'address' parameter already carries an example format including suburb and postcode. The description adds no format, normalization, or partial-input syntax beyond what the schema provides, so this sits at the baseline.

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), resource (NSW street address), and output (official form and coordinates), and names the authoritative register it matches against (NSW address register / Spatial Services). An agent can immediately distinguish this from the DA search/get siblings, which deal with applications rather than addresses.

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?

'Use it to check an address before a paid nearby search, or to get latitude/longitude' gives clear selection context and points at the paid nearby-search alternative without naming it directly. Missing only an explicit pointer to the exact sibling tool name and a when-not-to-use case.

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