singapore_get_statistics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its budget on behavior: units and footnotes are preserved, values stay as strings to preserve missing-value markers, and the 'last N upstream periods per series' truncation is disclosed. What's missing is any note on cost, rate limits, or response size for large tables.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. The density is high but every clause carries information; slight cost is that the pagination note trails after the filtering explanation rather than sitting with parameter guidance.

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, the description need not explain return shape, and the string-values/missing-marker note is a good bonus. However, for a 9-parameter tool with near-zero schema documentation, the gaps around period ranges, series filtering, ordering, and sibling routing leave an agent guessing on several call-shaping decisions.

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 only 11% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it clarifies period (one exact upstream value), period_limit (last N periods per series) and series_offset (pagination). It says nothing about order, from_period/to_period, series_limit, series_contains, or the resource_id format, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.

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 ('Read SingStat time series') plus the distinguishing trait that units and footnotes are retained. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the discovery siblings search_statistics/inspect_statistics, so an agent must infer this is the data-retrieval endpoint.

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 gives a workflow hint ('fetches table (or one exact upstream period), then filters series locally') and an explicit pagination instruction ('Use series_offset to paginate series'). It never says when to choose this over singapore_search_statistics, singapore_inspect_statistics, or the many singapore_query_* specialized tools, and offers no exclusion guidance.

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