singapore_lookup_dataset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: resolution happens against a bundled snapshot, no network call is made, and a miss does not mean the dataset is absent from the live catalog. The one caveat is that openWorldHint=true reads slightly at odds with 'No network', though this is a scope nuance rather than a true contradiction.

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 zero filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the caveat about missing entries follows. 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 and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to convey the snapshot-vs-live distinction and the miss case — both are present. An agent can call this correctly and interpret a not-found result from what is written.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the schema documents only the regex pattern (^d_[a-f0-9]{32}$) with no prose. The description reinforces 'exact' matching, which is useful, but it does not explain the ID format, where to obtain a valid ID, or whether case/whitespace tolerance exists.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('exact dataset ID') scoped to the 'bundled snapshot', which tells an agent this is a local lookup rather than a live query. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (singapore_search_catalog or singapore_inspect_dataset), so the differentiation is inferred from 'exact' rather than stated.

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 word 'exact' implies this is for known IDs rather than fuzzy discovery, and the closing clause hints at a fallback path when an entry is missing. However, it never names the alternative tool to call (e.g. search_catalog) nor states the precondition that an ID is already in hand, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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