Bulk-resolve Compass listings by street address

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

Even though readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already cover safety, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: retryable statuses that are NOT misses, auth_required recovery, the three-rung WAF-routing fallback, the deliberate decision to return no URL rather than leak a wrong property, server-side fan-out, and the pending deadline. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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 long, but proportionally so: it documents multiple return modes, retry semantics, and a fallback algorithm with no output schema available. It front-loads the core purpose and then methodically adds one behavior per sentence; every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema and multiple non-obvious failure modes, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers exact row shapes for resolved, no-match, timeout, bridge_down, auth_required, and pending cases; explains when to retry; and states read-only/idempotent behavior consistent with the annotations. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter, the addresses array, is already documented with min/max item counts and an example address line. The description adds that each input produces one row and that row's query echoes the input, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Resolve up to 100 street addresses to Compass listing URLs in a single call." This immediately distinguishes it from the singular compass_get_by_address and other siblings, and the rest of the description elaborates on output modes rather than obscuring the core purpose.

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 gives strong usage context: it is the bulk variant, it references compass_get_by_address for the same lookup rungs, and it gives explicit retry guidance for timeout, bridge_down, pending, and auth_required rows. However, it does not explicitly say "use compass_get_by_address for single addresses" or otherwise state when-not to use this tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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