singapore_query_hdb_median_rent

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: results are built from a bundled catalog and callers must fetch metadata for current coverage, which is a staleness caveat an agent would otherwise miss. It says nothing about result volume or the 100-row cap, but that is in the schema.

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-loaded with the purpose, then the inspect-first prerequisite, then capability list and the coverage caveat. It is dense but each clause carries a distinct instruction; the dataset-ID string is long but functional.

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 remaining prerequisites: inspect the dataset first, supported query modes, pagination, and a caveat about catalog coverage. An agent could call this correctly without further documentation.

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%, with q, sort, and filters described but fields, limit, and offset bare. The description names all the modes (exact filters, column text search, fields, sort, pagination) but supplies no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already gives, so it neither compensates for the gap nor falls below the baseline.

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 Median Rent By Town And Flat Type") plus the domain owner (HDB) and topic (housing), which is enough to separate it from the rent/resale siblings. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent how it differs from singapore_query_hdb_rentals or singapore_query_hdb_resale, which are the nearest alternatives.

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?

"Inspect dataset d_23000a00c52996c55106084ed0339566 first for filter fields" is a concrete precondition, and the description lists the available query modes (exact filters, text search, fields, sort, pagination). However, it never states when to use this tool over the generic singapore_query_dataset or the adjacent HDB tools, so routing is left to inference.

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