singapore_query_government_expenditure

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results carry source coverage from a bundled catalog and metadata should be fetched for current coverage, warning the agent about potentially stale data. It doesn't say anything about result shape or error behavior, but the output schema covers the former.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the resource and dataset id before the operational details. The closing sentence about catalog coverage is slightly compressed to the point of being cryptic ("Returns source coverage from the bundled catalog"), but no sentence 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the prerequisite, query modes, and stale-coverage caveat for a 6-parameter tool. What's missing is any guidance on the 0-required-parameter case or when this tool is the wrong choice among many sibling query tools.

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 50%, and the description partially compensates by clarifying the semantic split between exact filters and column-scoped text search, plus naming fields, sort and pagination. It adds no bounds or defaults for limit/offset/fields, which the schema leaves undocumented, so the gap is only half closed.

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 Government Total Expenditure") with the owning agency (Ministry of Finance) and the exact dataset id, so scope is unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish itself from the generic sibling singapore_query_dataset beyond the dataset id, so an agent still has to infer whether to use the specialized tool or the generic one.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ("Inspect dataset d_00f9... first for filter fields") and enumerates supported query capabilities (exact filters, column text search, fields, sort, pagination). It lacks an explicit when-not or an alternative-tool pointer, e.g. when to prefer singapore_inspect_dataset or the generic query tool.

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