singapore_query_sport_facilities

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: results carry source coverage from a bundled catalog that may be stale, so metadata should be fetched for current coverage — a real caveat the annotations cannot convey.

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 topic, then the prerequisite, then the capabilities, in a short block with no filler. 'Topic: culture' is slightly cryptic but costs little space.

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 described, and annotations cover safety; the description supplies the dataset id prerequisite and the coverage-staleness caveat. An agent has enough to invoke correctly, though it could be more explicit about how this differs from the generic query_dataset tool.

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 usefully enumerates the query modes: exact filters, column text search, fields, sort and pagination — mapping onto q, filters, fields, sort, limit/offset. It reinforces the schema's examples without adding new syntax or format detail, keeping it just above 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 (Query) and resource (Sport Facilities / Sport Singapore) plus the topic 'culture', which is enough for an agent to know exactly what data is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the generic sibling singapore_query_dataset, so it falls short of a 5.

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_2cfb0867cdeb2b7303068995699dc33b first to discover filter fields. That is actionable and specific. It does not state when to prefer this over singapore_query_dataset or the other per-dataset query siblings, so it stops short of naming alternatives.

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