Validate and normalize an address

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that fuzzy matching is used to correct small errors, and it lists the returned components (valid, best normalized match, alternatives). It does not mention potential side effects or edge cases (e.g., if no match is found), but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the fuzzy-matching behavior and a concise summary of return values. Every sentence 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?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, the fuzzy matching behavior, and the structure of the response. It could optionally mention error handling or the exact format of the normalized address, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the 'address' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: validating and normalizing a free-text address against an official register, with a returned normalized form and coordinates. It differentiates from sibling search tools by emphasizing validation and normalization rather than general search.

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 when you have an address that may contain spelling errors and need to check its validity against an official register. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_address, find_addresses_near, or find_place_names_near, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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