Assess a postal address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond these, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 structured and front-loaded, but the Args section is somewhat repetitive of the schema. At 165 words, it is adequately concise but not tight.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. All parameters are documented, and the description adds useful context about defaults and address format. The complexity (4 parameters, nested objects) is well-covered.

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 the description's Args section largely duplicates schema info. It adds minor value like default values and address format hints, but not enough to raise the score above 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 clearly states the verb 'Score' and the resource 'a single address against a policy', and mentions 'return its findings'. This distinguishes from siblings like classify_address and list_policies.

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 usage for scoring addresses and mentions list_policies for policy reference, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like assess_message or classify_address.

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