Resolve a OneHome listing by street address

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the two-rung lookup algorithm (ListingSuggestionsSearch then search-fallback), the bounded groupId pool, the matched_via output values, and the no-throw 'no listing found' behavior. This gives the agent an unusually complete picture of how the call behaves.

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 front-loads purpose and then compactly covers algorithm, return shape, error behavior, and safety. Every clause adds operational information; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 fully specifies the return object including url, listing_id, address, resolved, and matched_via, plus the failure response. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and read-only/idempotent annotations, the agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already explains zip, city, state, address, view, and group_id well. The tool description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that group_id bounds both the suggestion search and the fallback page-walk, which the schema only attributes to the suggestion search.

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 first sentence clearly names the verb 'Resolve', the resource 'a OneHome listing', and the outputs 'canonical portal URL and id', so there is no tautology. It distinguishes this from search/property tools by focusing on free-text street address resolution, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling onehome_resolve_addresses.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: resolving a free-text street address with optional city/state/zip to a listing URL and id in one call. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as onehome_resolve_addresses or onehome_search_suggestions, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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