singapore_get_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the call returns the collection plus its child dataset metadata, but says nothing about behavior on an invalid or missing collection_id or how deep the child metadata goes. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 fits.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the resource being fetched is front-loaded before the reason for fetching it. It is dense to the point of near-opacity in the phrase 'child dataset metadata', but nothing is wasted.

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 exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing for a one-parameter catalog tool is how to obtain a valid collection_id and what happens if it is wrong, which is the main practical risk an agent faces here.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of collection_id, and it does not — no hint that the id comes from singapore_list_collections or the catalog, and no note that it must be a positive integer. The only context is the word 'collection' in the purpose clause, which leaves a real gap for the single required input.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a collection and its child dataset metadata'), and the mention of child dataset metadata distinguishes it from a flat listing tool like singapore_list_collections. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with singapore_inspect_dataset or singapore_list_collections.

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 purpose clause ('to discover related historical series or ACRA partitions') implies when an agent would call it, which is better than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no routing to the obvious alternatives (list_collections to enumerate, inspect_dataset for a single dataset), leaving the agent to infer.

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