List access addresses by street, postcode or parcel

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's value is in the extras it supplies: anonymous access when no API key is set, 1-based pagination with page_size capped at 100, and the has_more/full-page continuation rule. It stops short of error behavior or rate limits, but the added operational context is substantial.

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 with purpose and filters in a scannable bulleted block, then pagination, then the exclusion. Slightly long overall, and the Danish municipality-code examples in the final sentence are borderline redundant, but nearly every line carries actionable 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?

For an 8-parameter, no-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers filter selection, pagination, auth mode and result contents (coordinates in EPSG:25832 and WGS84). Only minor gaps remain, such as the default page_size behavior and what happens with conflicting filters.

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 88% so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further: it frames the four filter parameters as an either/or choice ('filtered by one of'), explains the provenance of each UUID, warns that postcode_id is NOT the 4-digit postcode, and gives a worked call example plus leading-zero municipality codes.

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 ('List access addresses (husnumre)') and immediately distinguishes itself from dar_search_addresses by scope. The parenthetical Danish term and the filter list make the resource unambiguous among the many dar_* siblings.

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 when to use each filter mode (municipality_code+road_code, street_id, postcode_id, cadastral_parcel_id), where each id comes from (dar_get_street, dar_get_postcode, earlier results), and closes with the exclusion: 'Does NOT search by street name. For that use dar_search_addresses (needs DATAFORDELER_API_KEY).' Nothing is left to inference.

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