sg_reverse_geocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds the valuable credential requirement (SG_ONEMAP_EMAIL + SG_ONEMAP_PASSWORD), but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, or return format. This is minimal but non-trivial context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the authentication requirement. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant information.

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 reverse geocoding tool with self-explanatory parameters, the description covers purpose and credentials. It lacks output shape or error behavior, which would be helpful given no output schema, but the essential context is present.

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 no descriptions for latitude/longitude and the description does not add any parameter detail beyond the names. The phrase 'coordinates' only implies the two parameters without clarifying formats or ranges. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 the specific verb 'Convert' with a clear resource ('coordinates to Singapore address'), which precisely identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like sg_geocode by explicitly stating the direction of conversion (coordinates to address).

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 usage: when you have coordinates and need a Singapore address. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like sg_geocode, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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