Get address by id

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the returned record embeds the husnummer and includes coordinates in two CRS. It does not say what happens for an unknown UUID (empty vs error), which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then the id provenance, then the return payload, then a concrete example call with sample output, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and discharges it by enumerating the embedded fields and coordinate systems, plus a worked example. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, which is minor for a single-id lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the UUID format and pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the id is the same UUID DAWA used for /adresser, which tells the agent where to source valid values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one Danish address ... from DAR by its UUID') and immediately disambiguates the granularity by defining adresse as a specific door/floor unit, which distinguishes it from dar_get_access_address and dar_get_street.

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?

Explicitly names the exclusion ('Not for text search') and routes to the two correct alternatives with the conditions that select them (API key for dar_search_addresses, municipality + road code for dar_list_access_addresses). It also tells the agent when the id is valid (stored DAWA ids keep working).

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