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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the three core behaviors and promises rooftop-level precision, which is useful. It omits failure/ambiguity handling, accuracy fallback, authorization or rate-limit requirements, and what happens when a postal code cannot be verified.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the primary action (standardize) and follows with verification and geocoding outcomes. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input intent and the returned value (rooftop GPS coordinates). Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it could do slightly more on error/ambiguity behavior, but it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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% for the single raw_address param, so the schema already documents it as 'Unformatted or partial street address string.' The description's 'messy street addresses' restates this without adding format, syntax, or example detail, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states specific verbs and resources: standardize addresses, verify postal codes, return rooftop GPS coordinates. An agent immediately knows this is an address normalization/geocoding tool. It lacks an explicit contrast to any sibling, but no sibling tool in the list overlaps with address geocoding, so differentiation is not needed.

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?

Usage is implied by 'messy street addresses' – call it when you have an unformatted or partial address to clean and geocode. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions (e.g. non-US addresses, PO boxes), and no mention of alternatives.

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