Bulk-resolve street addresses to Redfin URLs + home_ids

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: output order preservation, `resolved: false` for no-match, distinct retryable statuses (timeout/bridge_down/pending), per-row retry-once-on-timeout, server-side concurrency ~6, a hard overall deadline, and a pending count for selective re-runs. This far exceeds what the annotations alone convey and matches the read-only/idempotent hints without 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?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the core action, but not maximally concise. Every sentence adds value, but details like 'server-side concurrency ~6 in flight' are non-essential for invocation and could be trimmed. Overall structure is strong and readable.

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 having no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: input format and limits, batch behavior, failure semantics, retry policy, deadlines, and the intended follow-on use case. It even tells the agent what to do with pending results ('re-run just those'). This is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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%: the `addresses` array and `view` enum are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the input shape ('string or a structured {street, city, state, zip} object') without adding new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve up to 100 free-text street addresses to Redfin canonical home URLs + home_ids in a single tool call.' It clearly distinguishes this bulk resolver from sibling tools like redfin_search_properties and redfin_get_by_address by framing it as a bulk batch operation that collapses a multi-call flow into one trip.

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 it: 'Use this when you have a list of properties from another system (Compass, MLS, spreadsheet) and need their Redfin handles for follow-on calls.' It also contrasts with the 'typical 6-search-call + 15-resolve flow,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly spell out when-not-to-use or name alternative sibling tools, so it misses the full 5.

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