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

With annotations already covering safety and idempotency, the description adds the billing reality: a free trial on 5 addresses, then a price and a payment page. It also sharpens idempotentHint=true into a concrete one-hour window and shows the return handle (list_token). This is the kind of behavior an agent must know before calling.

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?

Three sentences, no waste. It leads with purpose, then the trial/pricing flow, then the token and dedup window — a sensible front-loading for an agent deciding whether to call.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the essential return value (list_token) and the next tool to use, plus the pricing/trial sequence and the dedup window. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already explains all four parameters. The description adds only weak connective context (list originates from a spreadsheet; addresses include house number plus postcode or city), which is baseline-level for a fully documented 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Starts WOZ lookups for a whole list of Dutch addresses.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup_woz_value (single address) by stating it operates on a whole list, and from get_address_list by naming the token it hands off.

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?

Gives a triggering context ('a spreadsheet the user shared') and tells the agent where the flow continues (list_token for get_address_list). It does not explicitly state when to prefer lookup_woz_value for a single address, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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