sg_neighbourhood_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the tool combines several data sources, which is useful, but it does not describe the report's return format, data freshness, or any limitations. The phrase 'comprehensive' is vague about what exactly is included beyond the listed categories.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists the key components. It is concise with no wasted words or repetition.

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 tool aggregates multiple data sources but has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not clarify the structure or format of the returned report, which is essential for an agent to use it correctly. It lists categories but gives no detail on how they are presented, leaving significant gaps.

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 sole parameter 'area' with examples (Tampines, Bishan, etc.), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new param-specific information, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('comprehensive neighbourhood report') for a Singapore area. It enumerates the combined data types (HDB prices, schools, hawker centres, dengue clusters, weather), which distinguishes it from the individual sibling tools like sg_weather or sg_hdb_prices.

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 clearly implies a use case: when a holistic overview of a neighbourhood is needed rather than calling multiple individual tools. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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