auspost_get_postcode

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'look up' without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (api_key), rate limits, or whether the lookup is read-only. This lack of transparency leaves the agent guessing.

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 a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse. However, it is under-specified; the brevity sacrifices important context that could be added without much bloat.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return format, authentication, and the scope of lookup (forward and reverse). It does not leverage the schema to provide a complete picture.

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 input schema has 50% description coverage (only 'q' is described). The description adds marginal value by indicating that 'q' can be a suburb name or postcode, but it does not clarify the 'api_key' parameter or its necessity. The schema itself already provides the same level of info for 'q'.

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 clearly states the action ('look up') and the resource ('Australian postcode or suburb'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like auspost_delivery_times and auspost_track_parcel. However, it does not explicitly state that it supports both forward and reverse lookups, which would make it even clearer.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other Australia Post tools. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or an alternative for different lookup scenarios.

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