singapore_list_curated_datasets

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — that coverage dates are included and some series are historical — which matters for data currency, but it says nothing about result size, pagination, or what 'curated' excludes.

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 action front-loaded, so it is efficient. The trailing sentence about the full catalog is the weakest, since it alludes to a sibling without naming it, but overall there is little waste.

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-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a discovery tool in a family with many list/search siblings, the description leaves the agent unsure how topic values are formed and how this differs from list_collections or search_catalog — meaningful gaps that the description should have closed.

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% for the single 'topic' parameter; the schema only tells the agent it is a string up to 100 characters. The description's 'by topic' confirms the filter's intent but says nothing about accepted values, matching behavior, or what happens when topic is omitted (it is optional). The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: browse curated datasets (and their tool names) by topic. It hints at the boundary with the broader catalog search, but does not distinguish itself from close siblings like singapore_list_collections or singapore_list_catalog_page, so the agent cannot fully place it in the family from the text alone.

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 full catalog is searchable separately' implies that singapore_search_catalog should be used when a topic-agnostic lookup is needed, but it never names the alternative or states the selecting condition. The mention that some series are historical gives a hint about when this browse view is appropriate, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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