sg_taxi_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get locations' implies a read-only operation, and the 'no key needed' note discloses an important access condition. However, it does not describe potential response format, rate limits, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the core function and access requirements. It could be more explicit about the return shape (e.g., coordinates vs. addresses), but the current level of detail is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage vacuously. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('locations of available taxis in Singapore'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sg_bus_arrival or sg_traffic_incidents. The mention of the data source (data.gov.sg) adds clarity about the provenance.

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 for taxi location queries and notes 'no key needed,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context about accessibility but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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