sg_geocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the credential requirement (SG_ONEMAP_EMAIL + SG_ONEMAP_PASSWORD), which is useful, but it does not mention return format, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 consists of two sentences, each earning its place: the core function and the required credentials. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary details.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations. The description conveys the action and authentication requirement but does not specify the output format or further context. It is adequate for basic invocation but has gaps around return values.

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 input schema already describes the parameter fully as 'Address, building name, or postal code'. The description repeats similar information without adding new meaning, so it stays at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool converts a Singapore address or postal code to coordinates, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like sg_reverse_geocode, which performs the opposite function.

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 purpose is clear and the auth requirement is stated, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It provides clear context without explicit usage distinctions, earning a 4.

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