address_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It never states whether this is a read-only search, whether authentication is required, whether the limit parameter truncates results, or how ambiguous or partial matches are handled — only the barest hint of a read-only lookup is conveyed by the word "lookup".

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the primary required input is named first. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being optimally sized for a five-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a five-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the one-line description leaves too much unspecified — notably the city vs. zip_or_city relationship and the limit semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains zip_or_city (postcode/town) and the optional street and house number, but leaves city and limit entirely unaddressed — and city is especially problematic because its relationship to the required zip_or_city field is left ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb/resource ("Swiss address lookup") plus the key inputs (postcode/town, optional street and house number), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish this from nearby siblings like my_addresses, my_address, or find_stores, which a caller could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for resolving/validating Swiss addresses from a postcode or town. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over my_addresses (saved addresses) or find_stores, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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