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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing: no mention of normalization rules, output format, side effects, or edge cases. An agent has no basis for predicting the tool's 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?

The description is minmally sized but not usefully concise: it wastes its only sentence by repeating the tool name in a title-like format. It provides no information that earns its place.

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?

Address normalization is a nontrivial operation with many possible conventions, yet this description explains none of them. There is no output schema, no examples, no mention of accepted address formats, and no differentiation from address parsing or validation tools. This is completely inadequate for correct tool selection and 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 baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions are generic ('Input to process', 'Address to process') and do not clarify which of the two parameters should be used or how they relate, so the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 is a tautology: 'Address Normalize: Address Normalize' merely restates the tool name and provides no definition of what normalization means or what the tool actually does. An agent cannot determine the behavior from this text.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool, what kind of input is expected, or how it differs from siblings like x402-address-parse and x402-address-validate. It is not actively misleading, but it provides no usable direction.

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