get_available_addresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type ('List of available addresses with their IDs') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, and the output schema likely handles return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are significant gaps for a tool in this context.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the parameter's purpose: 'order_id: The ID of the package order.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title and type), this compensates well. However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid ID ranges or format, leaving some gaps.

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: 'Get available delivery addresses for an order.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('available delivery addresses'), and context ('for an order'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_order_details' or 'change_address', which might also involve address-related operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the order must be in a specific state), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_available_restrictions' or 'change_address'. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly defined.

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