verify_address

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive, so core safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: uses OpenStreetMap (no key), assesses business vs. residential, and flags unresolved or residential HQs. This enhances transparency without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose, usage context, and key behavioral details. No wasted words; front-loaded with the primary function.

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 (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return values. It covers the main input (address), the core behavior (geocoding and classification), and usage context. It is complete for a verification tool of this nature.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (address, response_format), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the verification logic (geocoding, classification, red flag), which helps the agent understand what happens with the address parameter.

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 geocodes a physical address via OpenStreetMap and classifies it as business or residential. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on address verification rather than email, domain, or phone checks.

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 includes an explicit 'Use when' clause ('when an offer lists a company address to verify'), providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the sibling tools cover other verification needs, making the guidance sufficient.

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