Search Redfin listings

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, it discloses the autocomplete-to-gis flow, the street-address short-circuit, the meaning of resolved_as and coverage values, result_cap_hit semantics, and loud errors on cross-continent ZIP fallback. It also explicitly confirms read-only safety, consistent with the annotations. No 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 long but dense, front-loading the core action and packing each distinct behavior into its own sentence. A small amount of redundancy with the status schema and the readOnly annotations keeps it from being perfectly lean.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does: price, beds/baths, sqft, year built, address, URL, plus resolved_as, coverage, and result_cap_hit. It covers error cases, limits, and sibling alternatives, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

The schema already documents location, limit, status, and home_types; the description adds operational meaning for those by explaining autocomplete resolution, limit clamping to 350, and the status error behavior. The numeric filter parameters (beds_min, baths_min, price_min, price_max) lack schema descriptions and are only hinted at via 'narrow with price/beds filters,' which is a modest gap.

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 ('Search Redfin listings by location...') and details the resolution pipeline, return fields, and envelope semantics. It explicitly distinguishes itself from redfin_get_by_address for per-property lookups and names rental/sold alternatives, so an agent can tell it apart from the 20 sibling tools.

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 states exactly when to use the tool (location-based listing searches) and when not to: sold/for_rent statuses return errors and should use redfin_get_comparable_rentals or redfin_get_market_report, and profile_only coverage should use redfin_get_by_address. It also gives operational guidance around result_cap_hit and ZIP fallback failures.

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