Resolve an address to its Redfin canonical URL + home_id

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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the 3-rung resolution ladder, the matched_via discriminator, that a total miss returns resolved:false with attempts rather than throwing, and that signed-out sessions, bridge failure or region mismatch DO surface as errors. That error-vs-empty-result boundary is the most decision-relevant behavior for an agent and is not in any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the ladder, and most clauses carry real information. Some internal issue references (#75, #42) and the parenthetical cross-MLS anecdote add length without much selection value, costing a point.

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 still names the returned fields (matched_via, resolved, attempts) and the error conditions, and it ties the result to the next call in the chain. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret this 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning: address is free-text and city/state/zip are optional, plus the non-obvious dependency that city/state are what enable rung 3's locality-to-region search fallback. That conditional relevance is beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (free-text address → Redfin canonical URL + home_id), and goes further by naming the exact follow-on sibling (redfin_get_property) and the cross-MLS discrepancy case it feeds. An agent can distinguish it from redfin_resolve_addresses / redfin_bulk_get by the single-address scope stated in the name and text.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use this when you have a property address and need its Redfin home_id for follow-on calls (e.g. redfin_get_property).' It also implies when the fallback rung applies (city/state provided). It never states when NOT to use it, notably against the very similar sibling redfin_resolve_addresses, which is the one real routing gap.

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