search_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the service (Adressevælgeren/DAWA replacement) and the search action; it does not say whether the operation is read-only, how many results are returned, how errors are handled, or whether any state changes occur.

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 the core action first and the usage context second. No filler or redundancy; every phrase earns its place.

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 a simple 2-parameter search tool, the description plus schema provide the basic invocation path (query required, limit optional with min/max). However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of any return-format or behavioral note leaves some ambiguity about what the tool actually produces and whether it is safe/read-only.

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 50%: only 'query' has a description, and it already says 'Free-text Danish address.' The description's 'free text' phrasing restates that schema info and adds nothing about the 'limit' parameter, which remains unexplained in both schema and 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?

Description states a specific action (search) on a specific resource (Danish addresses) with a clear method (free text). It also places the tool in the workflow ('Use before any property lookup'), which distinguishes it from downstream lookup tools among the siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with a named sibling like resolve_property.

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 phrase 'Use before any property lookup' gives a clear when-to-use rule and establishes this as a prerequisite for downstream tools. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., resolve_property), so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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