singapore_query_private_property_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the index base period, the requirement to inspect the dataset for filter fields, and the caveat that coverage is bundled/cached and may be stale. It does not discuss result shape or how the source coverage caveat manifests at call time.

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 dataset identity and index base in the first sentence, then the operational workflow, then the coverage caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; the raw dataset hash is the only mildly noisy element, though it is functional since it is the inspection target.

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 explanation is not required. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient: an agent knows what the data is, the prerequisite inspection step, the querying capabilities, and the coverage caveat. Remaining gap is minor (no explicit sibling routing).

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% (fields, limit and offset carry no descriptions). The description enumerates the capabilities - exact filters, per-column text search, fields, sort, pagination - which maps across all six parameters and partially compensates, but adds no specifics on defaults, the 100-row cap, or sort syntax beyond what the schema already shows.

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 quarterly price indices of non-landed private residential properties by locality, sourced from DOS, with the index base (1Q2009=100) and topic (housing) named. An agent can tell this is the private-residential price series rather than an HDB resale/rental series. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the query is about HDB or landed property.

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 workflow: inspect dataset d_65f5bf43d377db3939d93eb6f744d950 first to discover filter fields before filtering or sorting. It also flags that coverage comes from a bundled catalog and that metadata should be fetched for current coverage. No explicit when-not or named alternative sibling is given, which keeps it below 5.

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