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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the check and input format, omitting what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, report, error), whether it is side-effect-free, or any limitations. This is a notable gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 compact at two sentences and front-loads the purpose. However, the second sentence duplicates schema details, which slightly reduces its value, but overall it is concise and scannable.

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?

This is a check tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what happens on success/failure. It doesn't mention return values, error behavior, or whether results are synchronous, leaving the agent without critical outcome expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, with the schema already describing the address object fields and free-text fallback. The description repeats the field list but omits the CtrySubDvsn field and free-text option, so it adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks postal address data against SWIFT/SEPA/CHAPS structured address requirements, with a specific verb ('check') and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like validate_message, which likely cover broader message validation.

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 use when address compliance needs verification (e.g., ahead of the Nov 2026 deadline), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use it is present.

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