list_addresses

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by describing a listing operation without contradictions. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as recommending a default perPage value (200), explaining pagination mechanics with 'after' parameter, and noting that results are paginated—details not covered by annotations alone.

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 well-structured and concise, with four sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the tool's purpose, recommending a default, explaining filtering, and detailing pagination and sorting. No wasted words, and it's front-loaded with essential information.

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 complexity (7 parameters, pagination) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects like default usage, filtering, and pagination. However, it doesn't detail the response format or error handling, which could be helpful for an agent. With annotations providing safety info, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by explaining how to use 'after' for pagination and 'search' for fuzzy matching, but this mostly reinforces rather than extends the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'list addresses for a customer in Paddle,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_address' (singular) or other list tools, though the context of listing addresses for a specific customer is reasonably distinct.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning filtering, pagination, and sorting, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_address' or other list tools. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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