List landed house projects/estates we track, optionally filtered by district. Free - use this to discover valid names before calling the paid stats/yield tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| district | No | Optional two-digit postal district code to filter by. Omit to list every landed project tracked. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('list') and optional filtering, but does not disclose details like pagination, sorting, or data freshness. The presence of an output schema partially compensates.
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?
Two short sentences, under 30 words total, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: purpose then usage. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and filtering option. It mentions the 'free' aspect and the discovery use case. Minor gaps: no mention of read-only nature or result set limits, but overall sufficient.
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 the schema already thoroughly documents the 'district' parameter. The description echoes the filter option but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action: 'List landed house projects/estates we track,' with a specific resource and optional filtering by district. It also distinguishes from siblings (list_condo_projects, list_hdb_towns) by specifying 'landed' and mentioning free usage for name discovery.
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 provides explicit usage context: 'Free - use this to discover valid names before calling the paid stats/yield tools.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though siblings are listed separately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: data freshness, sample data, and listings for condos, HDB towns, and landed projects. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*) using snake_case, making them easy to understand.
Five tools is slightly on the smaller side but appropriate for a data portal's free tier; each tool serves a specific discovery or metadata function.
The tools cover discovery and metadata but lack any actual data retrieval endpoints (e.g., stats for districts or projects), which are described as paid. This leaves agents unable to complete core property data requests.