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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the load. It adds two useful facts beyond the annotations: the prerequisite of an existing customer and the return of an address id. However, it says nothing about validation failures, required-field handling, or why a create is flagged destructive, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 tightly written sentences plus an endpoint reference; the operation and its purpose are front-loaded with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the operation, prerequisite, and return value (valuable since there is no output schema), but with 7 parameters at 29% schema coverage, an agent still lacks guidance on the required address fields. Adequate but with a clear documentation gap.

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 only 29% (7 params, 6 required, only country and customer_id described) and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate for the five undocumented address fields, and it does not.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Add a service address to an existing customer', clearly distinct from sibling create tools like housecall_create_customer and housecall_create_job. It also states the downstream purpose of the created resource (address id for jobs/estimates), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

'An existing customer' states the prerequisite, and the note about using the returned address id 'when creating a job or estimate' tells the agent where this tool fits in a workflow. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternative tools, but the context for use is clear.

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