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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It confirms this is a mutation ('Add') but says nothing about permissions/authorization, whether addresses are deduplicated or capped per customer, whether the new address becomes the service address, or what happens on invalid jurisdiction/postal codes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 mutation tool with a nested-object schema, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin: it doesn't cover the write's side effects, the required nested fields, or failure modes.

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 0% and there is a nested address object, yet the description only labels 'label' and 'access_notes' as optional and says nothing about line1/line2/locality/postal_code/jurisdiction, nor about customer_id being a required UUID. This is well below the point where the schema compensates.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Add a service address to a customer') and names the optional fields, which distinguishes it from properties_list and properties_update by implication. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it lands at a clear-but-not-differentiating 4.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus properties_update, nor any prerequisite (e.g., the customer must already exist, whether an address can be primary/service). The agent must infer all of that.

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