Validate Address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say the tool returns a normalized version with a confidence score and corrections, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior on invalid input, edge cases, country-specific handling, or limitations, leaving significant behavioral traits undocumented.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by return value details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does a good job covering the return value in prose. It explains what the tool produces (normalized address, confidence score, corrections) without needing an output schema. However, it stops short of mentioning potential failure modes or international address handling, which would make it more complete.

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. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate or add detail.

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 validates and standardizes a postal address, using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order or calculate_shipping. It explicitly mentions returning a normalized version with confidence score and corrections, fully clarifying its purpose.

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. It does not mention preconditions (e.g., use before shipping), exclusions, or related tools that might be more appropriate in certain contexts. This is essentially a bare functional description with no usage context.

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