singapore_query_greenhouse_emissions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), freeing the description to add real value: it discloses that results carry source coverage from a bundled catalog that may be stale and must be refreshed via metadata. That staleness caveat is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure not present in annotations.

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?

Front-loads the resource and scope in the first sentence, then layers the prerequisite and capability summary. Dense and largely waste-free, though the trailing catalog-coverage sentence is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity.

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?

With a rich annotation set and an output schema present, the description need only supply what structured fields cannot: the discovery prerequisite and the coverage-staleness caveat. Both are present, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 50%, and the description enumerates the capability set (exact filters, column text search, fields, sort, pagination) which maps recognizably onto filters/q/fields/sort/limit/offset. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own examples, so it neither compensates for nor worsens the mid-level coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource (query greenhouse gas emissions by sector, annual) plus the source agency and topic, so the domain is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the many other singapore_query_* siblings (e.g. singapore_query_dataset), so an agent must infer selection from the topic string 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?

Provides a concrete procedural prerequisite: inspect dataset d_1b8dcef6bf32ece26deca60e59d99f71 first to discover filter fields, and fetch metadata for current coverage. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over singapore_query_dataset or the generic statistics tools, so competing options remain unresolved.

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