My saved addresses

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declared, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is a read-only view of existing data that cannot be mutated through the tool, since address creation happens externally. The remaining gap is the return shape (a list of addresses with ids), which is not described, but the key operational constraint is disclosed.

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 no filler, and the primary purpose comes first with the ordering prerequisite attached directly to it. The second sentence covers the constraint in a single clause.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the agent has what it needs: what the tool returns conceptually, why to call it, and that creation is out of band. It would be marginally stronger if it hinted that the result is a list keyed by address_id, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter, session_key, and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself pointing back to foran_login. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is the baseline rather than added value.

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 names the resource precisely ('The customer's saved delivery addresses') and the parenthetical clarifies the practical purpose (address_id is needed to place an order). It doesn't use an explicit retrieval verb, so an agent infers the read behavior from 'saved' plus the title, but the resource and scope are unambiguous and clearly distinct from order, cart, and location 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?

It gives a concrete use case (fetch address_id before placing an order) and, importantly, an exclusion: new addresses cannot be added here, they are created in the Foran app or website. That steers the agent away from attempting a create flow, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative or say when the list might be empty.

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