Bulk-resolve street addresses to OneHome URLs + listing_ids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, it adds valuable behavioral details: the exact resolving algorithm (2-rung ladder), concurrency cap, per-row error handling, and output order preservation. No contradictions with annotations.

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 reasonably concise despite being detailed. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then provides necessary details in subsequent sentences. Every sentence adds value, though slight tightening could improve readability.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return format (preserved order, resolved/error rows, fields like url, listing_id, matched_via). It also covers error handling, concurrency, and the algorithmic equivalence to the single tool. This fully equips the agent to use the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the default for group_id (magic-link session context), limits addresses maxItems/shape, and communicates the row-level output structure. This enhances understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 bulk-resolves up to 100 structured addresses to OneHome canonical portal URLs and listing OSK IDs. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'onehome_get_by_address' by explicitly noting they walk the same ladder but this is the bulk variant.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the single-address alternative, mentions concurrency cap (6 in-flight), error isolation per row, and the default group_id behavior. This helps the agent choose correctly between sibling tools.

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