list_additional_addresses

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the operative word 'Fetch'. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered, but the description does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination (limit/offset) or that results are tied to a contact. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no added value.

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 a single, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and directly communicates the core function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and full parameter schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement of return value or the relationship between contact_id and 'additional addresses', but the schema and tool name fill most gaps. A short note on when to use list vs search would elevate it, but overall it is adequate.

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%, with each parameter documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already fully explains limit, offset, order_by, and contact_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetch a list') and the resource ('additional addresses'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_additional_address (singular) and search_additional_addresses (search-based), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_additional_addresses or get_additional_address. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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