Address Normalizer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses transformation logic (st→ST examples) and output structure (confidence score levels: high/medium/low). However, it omits operational characteristics like idempotency, error handling for invalid addresses, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 efficiently structured sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose; the second provides concrete transformation examples (parenthetical) and return value specification. Information is front-loaded and every clause 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 low-complexity tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately compensates by detailing return values (confidence scoring, component parsing) and input constraints (US-only). A perfect score would require explicit error behavior or validation rules.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal semantic context by referencing 'parsed components' in the return description, which connects to the includeComponents parameter's purpose, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or the address input format beyond the schema definition.

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 opens with a precise verb ('Normalize') and specific resource ('US mailing address'), clearly distinguishing it from all siblings (none handle address processing). It further clarifies the USPS standard scope and explains exactly what normalization entails (abbreviation expansion, directional standardization, state code conversion).

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 clear context through the 'US mailing address' scope constraint, implicitly defining when to use it (US addresses only). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance (e.g., international addresses) or named alternatives, though none exist in the sibling set.

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