singapore_list_indicators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds curated-scope context and a sibling routing hint, but does not add behavioral details such as return shape or pagination. With annotations and an output schema present, this is an adequate but limited contribution.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The scope is front-loaded and the alternative is stated immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it establishes scope and points to the correct sibling for other indicators. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly say it returns a list of curated indicator codes, though the tool name and output schema cover that.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the empty schema is consistent with the tool taking no arguments.

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 identifies the resource and scope: curated World Bank indicators for Singapore. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_indicator tool by noting that other valid indicator codes are handled there. It stops short of explicitly saying it returns a list, but the name and resource description make the purpose clear.

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?

It explicitly routes non-curated indicator codes to get_indicator, giving the agent a clear alternative. It does not spell out the full workflow (e.g., use this to discover curated codes, then query them), but the when-to-use distinction is present.

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