my_addresses

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. It does disclose one important trait beyond the schema — that authentication is required — which is worth credit. But it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether an empty result is possible (e.g., a user with no saved addresses), or how many addresses are returned; for a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 resource identification is front-loaded ahead of the login caveat. It is efficient, though the telegraphic fragment style ('Your saved addresses.') reads more like a label than a description and could have carried a verb at no extra cost.

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 and there are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values or inputs — that lowers the bar considerably. What is still missing is the sibling differentiation an agent needs in a list containing 'my_address', 'address_search', and 'checkout_delivery_addresses'. Minimum viable, but no more.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description contains no misleading hints about inputs either, so nothing drags the score down.

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 ('Your saved addresses') but uses a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, so it is not explicit whether this lists, retrieves, or manages them. It also does nothing to distinguish this from the near-identically named sibling 'my_address' or from 'address_search' and 'checkout_delivery_addresses'. An agent can guess the intent, but the boundary between this and its siblings is left to inference.

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?

'Requires login' is a useful precondition, but there is no when-to-use guidance at all. Nothing says whether to pick this over 'my_address' (singular, apparently a single-address lookup) or 'address_search' (evidently a search over addresses). With three address-related siblings in the list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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