normalize_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'through the Russian Post API', which hints at network dependency and potential latency/failures, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, may modify any external state, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The tool's behavior beyond the basic operation remains opaque.

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 consists of a single, direct sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the purpose and the method, making it immediately understandable. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition, which makes it an exemplary model of conciseness for a simple tool.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states what the tool does and via what service. However, it does not describe the expected return value or any error behavior, which an agent might need for correct invocation. Given the tool's simplicity, these gaps are not critical, but the description could be more complete.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, giving a clear meaning for 'raw_address' ('Address in free form for normalization'). The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter itself. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gaps but also does not need to.

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 states a specific verb ('normalize') and a resource ('address') and specifies the method ('via Russian Post API'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'track' or 'zip_lookup' because the action and resource are unambiguous. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the distinct purpose is evident from the wording.

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: if an agent needs to normalize a postal address, this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or what alternatives might be better for different scenarios. The context is clear from the name and description, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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