sg_carpark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'real-time' and the SG_LTA_KEY requirement, but does not explain response behavior, error conditions, update frequency, or rate limits. This is minimal disclosure for a data-fetching tool.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: real-time availability, data sources, and the required API key. It is slightly thin on what the response contains, but for a simple lookup this is mostly adequate.

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 has 100% description coverage for the one optional 'location' parameter, and the description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantic burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('real-time carpark availability'), and scopes it to HDB, LTA, and URA sources. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sg_taxi_availability and sg_ev_charging.

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 implies use for real-time carpark availability queries and mentions a required API key, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives a clear context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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