singapore_get_indicator

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: results are ordered latest-years-first, null values are preserved rather than dropped, and no authentication key is required. It does not discuss pagination behavior or response shape, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 terse clauses, each carrying distinct information (scope, ordering/null behavior, source caveat and access). The comparison capability and source scope are front-loaded; no sentence is filler.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. But for a 6-parameter tool with 17% schema coverage, the description leaves the year-range and pagination parameters entirely to schema inference, which is a visible gap for a historical time-series query.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it does so only partially: it clarifies that compare_countries takes up to five ISO3 codes and that indicator is a World Bank series. The four pagination/year parameters (page, limit, from_year, to_year) receive no explanation beyond their self-evident names, and curated alias vs. raw code semantics are left to the schema.

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: fetch a World Bank historical indicator for Singapore, with an optional cross-country comparison. The mention of differing definitions/publication lag versus SingStat implicitly carves out space from the sibling statistical tools, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

Implies when this tool is appropriate (World Bank-sourced historical series, optionally multi-country) and that no API key is needed. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not name singapore_get_statistics or singapore_list_indicators as the sibling to use for alternative cases, leaving routing to inference.

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