List saved 99 addresses

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: dedicated address URLs return 404 and are not shipped, and GPS/street data is redacted by default. This helps an agent set expectations about data availability and the returned content.

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 short sentences with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence packs two behavioral caveats without padding. Minor stilted phrasing ('URLs 404 and are not shipped') keeps it from being perfectly structured.

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 simple two-parameter schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the core operation and adds useful caveats. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the shape of the returned address list or how response_format affects it. Overall it is minimally viable but leaves parameter and output behavior to inference.

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?

Both parameters have zero schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain privacy_mode or response_format; the only related hint is that GPS/street is redacted by default, which may imply privacy_mode control but is not explicit. The enum values are self-explanatory, but that comes from the schema, not the description.

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 states a clear operation: read saved/home addresses, sourced from pGetConfig when present. This distinguishes it from the sibling ride/connection tools, which are about rides, status, estimates, and logout. The 'pGetConfig' reference and the '99 addresses' phrasing in the title add slight jargon, so it is not perfectly polished.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives. The only conditional phrase, 'when present', describes a data-availability caveat rather than a decision rule. Sibling tools are different enough that an agent might infer usage, but the description does not state it.

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