Validate Address

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions return values but omits behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or error conditions. For a validation tool, this is a gap.

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 sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with key information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate output description), but overall very concise and efficient.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose and basic output (validity, classification, corrections). However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavior for invalid addresses. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It correctly implies address components but adds no new semantic details.

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?

Clearly states verb+resource: 'Validate a US or Puerto Rico address'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., create_shipment, track_package) by focusing on validation. Mentions specific service (UPS Address Validation) and return types (validity, classification, corrections).

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?

Provides implied usage: validating addresses. But lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., before shipping, after data entry). No exclusions or comparisons to siblings like create_shipment or get_rates.

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