normalize_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool normalizes an address. It does not reveal what 'structured components' are returned, whether the tool fails on non-Japanese addresses, or whether any network calls or side effects occur. This is minimal transparency.

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 succinct sentence that communicates the core function with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word 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?

The description lacks critical information for an agent that must rely on it alone, since there is no output schema to clarify return values. It does not describe the structure of the returned components, error conditions, or expected address format. For a simple one-parameter tool, more explanation about what 'structured components' means would be needed.

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 coverage is 100% — the single parameter 'address' is documented with 'The Japanese address string to normalize'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Normalize'), a clear resource ('Japanese address string'), and the intended outcome ('structured components'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'geocode' or 'search_places', which do different transformations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which normalization is preferred over geocoding or place search, despite siblings like 'geocode' and 'search_places' offering related address handling.

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