Bulk-resolve Compass listings by street address

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds extensive behavioral details: the three search rungs (autocomplete, freetext, fallback), candidate verification policy, error types (no-match, timeout, bridge_down), retryability, and note that bulk amplifies corruption. This enriches the annotations 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?

The description is relatively long but well-structured: first sentence gives core purpose, then response shapes, then search algorithm, then error handling, then bulk note. Every sentence adds value for a complex tool. Could be slightly more concise, but it's appropriate for the detail needed.

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 tool's complexity (bulk resolution, multiple response types, matching algorithm, retry logic), the description is highly complete. It covers return value shapes, edge cases (timeout, bridge_down), retry guidance, and match verification. Without an output schema, this is essential and well done.

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% with parameters described in schema. The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'addresses' array can hold up to 100 inputs, each with optional zip/city/state and required address. It also details the response structure for each input, going beyond the schema definitions.

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 resolves up to 100 street addresses to Compass listing URLs. It uses specific verbs ('resolve', 'returns') and resources ('street addresses', 'Compass listing URLs'). The sibling tools list includes compass_get_by_address (single address) and compass_bulk_get, so the description implicitly distinguishes by scale and 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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use: for bulk resolution of addresses, up to 100 per call. It explains the three response shapes and the retry behavior for timeouts/bridge_down, which helps the agent decide when to retry. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of compass_get_by_address for multiple addresses' but the context makes it clear.

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