singapore_query_air_quality_annual

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a modest behavioral note about returning bundled-catalog source coverage and needing to fetch metadata for freshness. It says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, or failure modes when a filter field is invalid.

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 tightly packed sentences with the dataset identifier and the inspect-first instruction front-loaded before capability summary. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the inspect-then-query workflow and supported query modes. The remaining gap is that with 50% schema coverage and two nested object parameters, the exact shape expectations (e.g. field-name keys for filters vs q) rely on the schema alone.

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 50%, so the description has to compensate, and it largely does: 'exact filters, column text search, fields, sort and pagination' maps onto filters, q, fields, sort, limit/offset. The mapping is by concept rather than by parameter name, so an agent must still infer which term corresponds to which key.

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 ('Query Air Quality, Annual') plus the source (Singapore Department of Statistics) and topic (environment), so an agent knows exactly which dataset it hits. It does not, however, distinguish itself from generic siblings like singapore_query_dataset or the weather-family tools (singapore_get_psi, singapore_get_pm25).

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 workflow hint 'Inspect dataset d_b733... first for filter fields' is genuinely useful sequencing guidance, and it lists supported query modes. But it never says when to prefer this over singapore_query_dataset or the specialist air-quality siblings, and gives no exclusion conditions.

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