Parse address

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 still adds real value by disclosing that no validation occurs here and where validation actually happens. It stops short of saying what happens on an unparseable or partially parsed input.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the transformation is stated first, then the context and the parse-only caveat. Nothing is repeated between sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs. The only gap is failure behavior on malformed input, which is not addressed.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the newline/comma-delimited free text and the 5–500 character bounds. The description adds only the informal framing ('a line copied from an email or an order'), which is marginal beyond the schema.

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 ('Splits') plus the exact output fields (name, street, city, state, ZIP, country), so the transformation is unambiguous. The second paragraph ties it to create_shipment and clarifies it is parse-only, which separates it from the shipment/address-creation 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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('free text such as a line copied from an email or an order') and a boundary ('It only parses; the address is checked when the shipment is created'). It implicitly routes the agent to create_shipment for validation, though it never names an explicit when-not-to-use case or a sibling that also parses text.

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