address_parse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it extracts building name, room number, and addressee, giving insight into the output. However, it does not detail edge cases, error behavior, or how incomplete addresses are handled, leaving gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys purpose, input source, and expected components.

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 one parameter, annotations, and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and output components. It does not specify the exact return format, but the phrase 'fully structured' plus the listed components give enough context for a parsing tool.

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?

The single parameter 'text' is fully documented in the schema with 'Free-form text containing a Japanese address.' The description reiterates this and adds output details but no new parameter-specific semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Extract' and names the resource (structured Japanese address) and source (free-form, OCR, or voice-transcribed text). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like address_geocode or address_normalize by focusing on parsing into components like building name, room number, and addressee.

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 identifies appropriate input types (free-form, OCR, voice-transcribed), making it clear when to use this tool over normalized or geocoding variants. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a one-parameter address parser.

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