Resolve an address to its Redfin canonical URL + home_id

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds significant context: the 3-rung resolution ladder, matched_via values, graceful degradation with resolved: false, address discrepancy conflicts via address_alternates field, and that no auth is required. No contradictions.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then details the algorithm, edge cases, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

The description covers the resolution algorithm, return values (URL, home_id, matched_via, address_alternates), graceful degradation, and when to use. No output schema exists, so mentioning key return fields is helpful. It could be slightly stronger by fully specifying the output structure, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that city/state/zip are optional, explaining their role in the search fallback step, and calling the address 'free-text'. This helps the agent understand parameter optionality and fallback behavior beyond the 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 specifies the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'address', and explains the outcome: canonical URL and home_id. It distinguishes from siblings like redfin_resolve_addresses by focusing on a single address resolution with a detailed algorithm.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you have a property address and need its Redfin home_id for follow-on calls.' It also mentions read-only nature and no auth. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like redfin_resolve_addresses for bulk, though the singular vs plural hints at it.

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