list_did_addresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only list operation and an eligibility qualifier, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, response shape, or whether any hidden filtering applies.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every phrase contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no inputs.

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 zero-parameter list endpoint, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource and the use case. However, since there is no output schema, it leaves the exact meaning of 'address' and any pagination behavior unstated, so a small amount of additional detail would make it fully 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds useful context by clarifying that the returned addresses are those usable for a DID purchase, which is the baseline expected for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('addresses usable when purchasing a DID'), making the tool's scope clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_dids and purchase_did, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 phrase 'when purchasing a DID' gives an agent a clear decision context for when to call this tool. It does not state exclusions or direct the agent to alternatives, but the intended use case is obvious enough for a simple list endpoint.

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