clean_address

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid (0.20 RUB/req) and returns structured fields, coordinates, and quality codes. However, it does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 two sentences long with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately adds value with pricing and output details. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output, and pricing. It lacks only minor details like potential input format nuances or geographical limitations, but overall is complete enough for effective use.

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 'address' has schema coverage at 100% with a description that matches the tool description. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter, but the description could clarify expected formats.

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 'standardize', the resource 'Russian address', and the outputs: 'structured fields, coordinates, and quality codes'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like clean_email or suggest_address, which have different purposes.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suggest_address or geolocate_address. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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