singapore_find_relevant_tools

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: matching is deterministic keyword-based (not semantic), and results are suggestions rather than computed facts — an important reliability caveat an agent would otherwise not know.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat following immediately. Some redundancy between 'Route an English question' and 'Search catalog with English keywords', which repeats the English-keyword idea twice.

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?

An output schema and full annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be described. What is missing is the relationship to the many sibling search/query tools and any hint about acting on the suggestions, which leaves the discovery workflow underspecified.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the required parameter is a natural-language English question/keywords, which is useful, but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or any length/format expectations.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Route an English question to tools and datasets.' That is clearly a discovery/routing tool rather than a data fetcher. However, the trailing sentence 'Search catalog with English keywords' blurs the line with the sibling singapore_search_catalog, so the differentiation is not fully crisp.

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?

Use of an English question as input implies the routing use case, and the line 'suggestions are not evidence or computed facts' hints at a first-pass discovery role. But it never says when to prefer this over singapore_search_catalog or singapore_search_statistics, nor does it advise calling the returned tools next.

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