sg_myinfo_hdb

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of 'SHOWCASE MODE (sandbox data)', indicating that the tool returns non-production test data. This is valuable beyond the name/schema since no annotations are provided. It doesn't mention permissions or read-only nature, but 'Get' implies a safe read operation, and the sandbox caveat is the most critical transparency point.

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 with two clear parts: the purpose and the sandbox caveat. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the emoji notation effectively highlights the showcase mode without excessive 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?

With no output schema, the description lists expected output fields (flat type, address, ownership details), giving the agent a reasonable expectation of return values. The sandbox caveat informs about data quality. The tool's simple scope (one optional parameter) makes this level of detail sufficient, though it could mention error handling or a more explicit note that data is linked to the NRIC.

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 only parameter nric is fully described in the schema ('NRIC/FIN number') with a default value and no required flag. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, and since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'HDB ownership and housing information', listing example fields such as flat type, address, and ownership details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sg_myinfo_person and sg_myinfo_cpf, and from sg_hdb_prices which focuses on pricing rather than ownership.

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 clear context by specifying the domain (HDB ownership and housing info), making it evident when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with sg_myinfo_person for personal data or sg_hdb_prices for housing prices.

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