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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered externally. The description adds that contact persons require an opt-in and that the underlying Collmex record is ADDRESS_GET, but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or what happens with large address books.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, no filler. The trailing address_type enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema but is short and directly usable.

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 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should say more about the returned record shape or pagination expectations. Parameter behavior is well covered by the schema, but the return-side and result-size picture is absent.

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 all 11 parameters including the address_type mapping are already documented. The description restates the address_type codes verbatim rather than adding interpretation (e.g. how text search interacts with address_no or address_group), so it earns only 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 and resource ('Search the Collmex address book, record ADDRESS_GET') and clarifies that customers, vendors and address-book entries come back 'in one list', which implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower collmex_list_customers / collmex_list_vendors siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool aggregates all three address categories and can include contacts, so an agent can infer it should be preferred when a combined view is needed. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus collmex_list_customers, collmex_list_vendors, or collmex_create_address's counterpart lookups.

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