sg_schools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the search scope (MOE schools) and mentions common data fields, but does not disclose whether results are limited to a certain number, whether authentication is needed, or what happens for empty queries. This is a notable gap for a read/query tool.

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, tightly worded sentence that conveys purpose and scope without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and earns maximum points for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what is searched and what data points are included. It slightly loses points because it omits any detail about the return format or result limits, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a basic directory lookup.

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 the single parameter 'query' with a description that already explains how to search (by school name, area, or keyword). The tool description adds little semantic nuance beyond this, so the score is at the baseline for full 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and a defined resource ('Singapore school directory'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on MOE schools with address, principal, and subjects. This makes it immediately clear what the tool does and where it fits among other Singapore-related tools.

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 (search for school info), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention any exclusions or related tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the purpose alone.

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