Resolve a street address to a Hemnet listing

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it scans up to 500 listings, a miss with truncated: true is not definitive, and matches include a score and matched_via. 'Read-only' and 'live … listing' align with the annotations; there is no 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?

Four sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover inputs, output shape, and the truncation caveat in logical order; every sentence earns its place. The only waste is the trailing 'Read-only,' which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

With no output schema, the description rightly takes on the job of spelling out return values—matched: true, score, matched_via, or { resolved: false }—and explains the failure mode plus mitigations. Minor gaps remain: the fields inside a matched listing and how matched_via is populated, which an agent would need to chain to hemnet_get_listing.

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 description coverage is 100% with worked examples ('Gäddstigen 1', 'Södertälje', 'Vasastan'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by linking price_min/price_max to 'narrowing the search rung' in the truncation caveat, but this is incremental to what the schema already documents.

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-resource pair—'Resolve a free-text Swedish street address to a live Hemnet for-sale listing'—and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like hemnet_search_listings (broad search) and hemnet_get_listing (fetch by ID). It states what goes in (address + location) and what comes out, so an agent cannot mistake its job.

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 use case is explicit: call this when you have a free-text street address and want the matching live for-sale listing. It also gives concrete conditional guidance—on a truncated miss, narrow with price_min/price_max or a smaller location—but it never names sibling alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., sold listings via hemnet_search_sold), leaving some routing to inference.

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