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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: a signed-in Printdash account is required, and calling it unauthenticated triggers a customer-facing sign-in flow on printdash.io rather than a plain error. It also discloses ordering (default address first), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 with no filler, and the resource plus ordering are front-loaded ahead of the auth caveat. The first sentence is a grammatical fragment ('...with the ids price_job and estimate_delivery take'), which slightly slows parsing but costs no real space.

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 zero-param read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what the list represents, its ordering, how the returned ids are consumed downstream, and the auth precondition. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to handle the signed-out case.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter discussion and instead spends its words on context and auth.

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 noun phrase 'The saved delivery addresses in the current buying context' plus the title make it unambiguous that this returns a list of addresses, and the sibling set (create_address, update_address, delete_address, set_default_address) leaves no confusion about which operation this is. It loses a point only because the description itself omits an explicit verb ('List'), relying on the title to carry that.

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 clause 'the ids price_job and estimate_delivery take' implies the workflow position of this tool (call it before pricing/estimating), which is a real usage signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to a sibling such as create_address when the list is empty — the agent must infer all of that.

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