singapore_query_hdb_rentals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: results carry source coverage from a bundled catalog that may be stale, so metadata must be fetched for current coverage — an important caveat for trusting returned data. No contradiction with 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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool queries, followed by the required prerequisite and capability list. No filler, though the dataset hash mid-sentence slightly interrupts the flow.

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-value detail is not needed, and the description still flags catalog-coverage provenance. For a 6-parameter query tool with nested `q`/`filters` objects, the remaining gap is the lack of stated contrast with the other HDB rental/resale 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 coverage is 50%, so the description must carry some load, and it does: it enumerates the supported capabilities (exact filters, column text search, fields, sort, pagination) and implicitly separates `filters` (exact equality) from `q` (column text search). It still doesn't explain limit/offset interplay or the field-name discovery requirement beyond pointing at dataset inspection.

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 Renting Out of Flats'), names the source agency and the topic, and pins the temporal scope (from Jan 2021). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like singapore_query_hdb_resale or singapore_query_hdb_median_rent, so an agent must infer the difference from the dataset name 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?

Gives one concrete workflow prerequisite: inspect dataset d_c9f57187485a850908655db0e8cfe651 first for filter fields, and notes metadata should be fetched for current coverage. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over singapore_query_hdb_median_rent or singapore_query_hdb_resale, which is the main ambiguity in a 50+ tool catalog.

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