ares_standardize_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key outputs (canonical text, code, confidence score, up to N suggestions) and the external register, but does not mention potential failure modes, rate limits, or behavior on non-Czech addresses. It provides moderate transparency but not deep behavioral insight.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, then succinctly lists key outputs. No filler or redundancy—every clause contributes essential information.

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 tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has no output schema. The description adequately covers the return values and purpose, but lacks note on RÚIAN coverage limitations or error conditions. For the complexity level, it is mostly complete, with only minor gaps.

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%, with both parameters ('adresa' and 'limit') well-described. The tool description adds only that suggestions are 'up to N', which is redundant with the 'limit' parameter. Since the schema already carries the parameter semantics, the description adds no significant extra value beyond the baseline.

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 ('Standardize'), a clear resource ('free-form Czech address against the RÚIAN register'), and the output ('canonical address text, RÚIAN address-point code, and confidence score'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ares_search_by_address, which presumably searches rather than standardizes.

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 implies the tool is for standardizing free-form addresses against RÚIAN, giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like ares_search_by_address or state when to choose this over alternatives, so guidance on usage vs alternatives is missing.

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