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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by disclosing the return contract (address ids) and the downstream tool they are meant for. It omits matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact) and zero-result behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and facets first, then the return/chaining contract, then a concrete example. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 only two parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies what is missing: what it returns and what to do with it. It could go further by noting how results are ranked or truncated against the limit cap, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it enumerates that the free-text query may carry street, number, floor/door and postcode, and its example ("Kilevej 6, 1. mf, 2000") demonstrates the floor/door component that the schema's own simpler example ("Nørrebrogade 10, 2200") does not show.

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 and resource (search Danish addresses) plus the exact input facets (street, number, floor/door, postcode) and the return type (address ids). This distinguishes it cleanly from get_valuation, which consumes those ids, and from get_postcode_sales, which is postcode-level rather than address-level.

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?

Explicitly frames this as the lookup step whose ids feed get_valuation, giving a clear workflow context for when to call it. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g. postcode-only lookups belong to a sibling) or what to do when no address matches, so it is not a full 5.

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