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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description sharpens the idempotency with a concrete 1-hour window rather than just restating the hint. It also discloses side effects the annotations don't: a free 5-address trial, a generated price, and a payment page, which tells the agent this is not a pure read despite being non-destructive.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the trial pricing flow, then the return value, then the dedupe rule. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, the description correctly names the key return value (list_token for get_address_list) and the billing flow, which is the essential information for this multi-step tool. It leaves some minor gaps, e.g. what happens on invalid addresses or how the token is used downstream, but covers what an agent needs to invoke it.

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 four parameters (addresses, email, place, trial_code) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as address formatting rules or how the trial_code interacts with the trial flow, so it merely meets 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+resource (starts WOZ lookups for a whole list of Dutch addresses) and scopes it against the single-address sibling by emphasizing the batch nature. It also names the follow-up tool get_address_list, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a 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?

Clear usage context is given – whole address lists, e.g. from a spreadsheet the user shared – and it explains the trial-then-pricing flow the caller should expect. It never explicitly states when NOT to use it (e.g. single lookups go to lookup_woz_value), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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