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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated with specific response envelope fields (list, page, pageSize, totalPageCount, totalRowCount), which is useful behavioral context not present elsewhere. It says nothing about empty results, permissions, or error behavior.

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 compact sentences with the subject front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical pagination field list is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 simple paginated read tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the endpoint returns and how it is paged. The main gap is routing guidance against sibling address tools, which is a usage rather than completeness issue.

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 80%; page, page_size, sort and order are all documented in the schema, including the paging-origin ambiguity. The description only contributes the householdId path param via the endpoint string, which is marginal added value. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (addresses of a household) and the endpoint, so an agent can tell it fetches household addresses rather than supporter addresses like the sibling funraise_list_supporter_addresses. The listing verb is implied rather than stated, but the resource and scope are 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over funraise_get_address (single address) or funraise_list_supporter_addresses. The agent is left to infer the selection rule entirely from the tool name.

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