sg_myinfo_cpf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the sandbox nature via 'SHOWCASE MODE (sandbox data)', which is valuable. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as permissions, rate limits, or output format, leaving some gaps for a read operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and data categories. The added 'SHOWCASE MODE' note is useful and not redundant. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (balances, contributions, employer history) and the sandbox context. It is mostly complete, though it could benefit from a note on whether the NRIC is required or any expected format details.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, providing 'nric' with description 'NRIC/FIN number'. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CPF information'), and it lists specific data types (balances, contributions, employer history) that distinguish it from sibling tools like sg_myinfo_person or sg_myinfo_passport.

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 usage by indicating the data type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide any general context. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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