parse_address

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior more fully. It mentions returning a confidence flag but omits output structure, error handling, or side effects. It is adequate but lacks detail.

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 concise (one sentence with bullet-like use cases) and prioritizes key information. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema, the description fails to specify the return format (e.g., JSON fields) beyond 'confidence flag.' This is a significant gap for a parsing tool, as agents need to know the output structure to use it correctly.

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 single parameter 'input' is described in the schema as 'free-text address,' and the description adds value by specifying the expected geographic scope (UK or US) and the extracted fields, which helps the agent format input appropriately.

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 tool extracts structured fields (country, postcode, city, state) from free-text UK or US addresses. It is distinct from sibling validation tools, which check format rather than parse content.

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 specific use cases (onboarding, KYC, storing address) and recommends against manual string splitting. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it (e.g., non-UK/US addresses) beyond the implied scope.

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