get_delivery_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. It discloses that the address is split into courier fields, that missing fields should trigger a user inquiry, and adds a strict 'Never invent a street, entrance, or intercom' constraint. It does not specify what happens when no saved address exists (e.g., null vs error), but the mention of missing fields partially covers this.

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 tight sentences: purpose and field list, usage triggers, and follow-up/constraint. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description covers what fields are returned, when to invoke it, what to do if data is incomplete, and a critical safety constraint. The only gap is the absence of explicit behavior when no saved address exists at all, but this is minor given the clear follow-up instruction.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description's field list relates to the return value rather than parameters, so no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the owner's saved AgentPay home address'), then enumerates the exact output fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning create_purchase and save_delivery_address, so an agent can tell it apart without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'before create_purchase' or when the user asks specific Russian phrases. It also provides a clear follow-up path: if fields are missing, ask the owner and use save_delivery_address. This is direct, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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