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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=true, which is itself counterintuitive for an address-creation operation, and the description neither explains nor reconciles it. It does add useful post-condition info (returns the address id for downstream job/estimate creation) that no output schema provides, plus the raw endpoint, but omits auth/permission and failure 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return-value purpose. The trailing endpoint path is slightly gratuitous but not wasteful.

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?

Return semantics are covered (no output schema exists), but with 7 parameters at 29% schema coverage and a mutation-implying annotation, the description leaves field-level requirements and the destructiveHint meaning unexplained.

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 only 29% across 7 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter-level detail beyond implying customer_id refers to an existing customer. It fails to compensate for the undocumented fields like street/zip/state or the optional street_line_2.

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 ('Add') and resource ('service address to an existing customer'), and names the underlying Housecall Pro endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like housecall_create_customer or housecall_update_customer.

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?

Establishes context: the customer must already exist, and the returned address id is what you feed into job/estimate creation. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but the use context is clear.

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