get_address

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only status, side effects, or authentication requirements. The return format is described, but overall behavioral context is lacking.

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, uses a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (2 params, read operation), the description covers purpose, arguments, and return values. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return documentation. However, it could mention any prerequisites or access requirements for completeness.

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 input schema has two required parameters with only titles. The description adds 'ADOM name' and 'Address object name', providing slight clarification over the schema. However, schema coverage is 0% according to context, so the description partially compensates but does not fully enrich parameter meaning.

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 starts with 'Get detailed information about a firewall address object,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_addresses (which lists all addresses) and other get_* tools for different objects.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool when detailed information is needed rather than just a list, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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