singapore_catalog_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral fact beyond that: results reflect a catalog snapshot as of a date, so counts can be stale relative to live pages. It says nothing about aggregation basis, coverage limits, or whether every agency appears.

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?

A single sentence with the resource and the two breakdown dimensions front-loaded, followed by the snapshot caveat. Nothing extraneous.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and with no parameters and full annotation coverage the remaining burden is small. The snapshot-date caveat is the key piece of context an agent needs, and it is present; only the relationship to the other catalog listing tools is unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies it is a whole-catalog aggregate with no filtering options.

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?

Specific verb plus a precise aggregate resource: dataset counts broken out by publishing agency and file format, plus the snapshot date. That is clearly distinguishable from record-level siblings like singapore_lookup_dataset or singapore_query_dataset, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and none of the nearby catalog tools (list_collections, search_catalog, list_catalog_page) are referenced as alternatives. The 'counts by agency and format' framing implies an overview/statistics use case, but the agent must infer that.

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