singapore_query_visitor_arrivals

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about pagination and a coverage caveat ('Returns source coverage from the bundled catalog; fetch metadata for current coverage'), but it does not address error behavior, rate limits, or result-shape nuances beyond the existing output 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the dataset prerequisite, supported operations, and coverage caveat. The text is compact and mostly earns its place, with only minor redundancy in the topic label.

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?

For a six-parameter query tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the key prerequisite, operations, pagination, and coverage caveat. It appropriately directs the agent to inspect the dataset rather than trying to list every filter field inline.

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 only 50%, so the description needs to compensate. It does so by mapping the main parameter roles: exact filters, column text search, fields, sort, and pagination, covering the otherwise under-documented fields, limit, and offset parameters at a semantic level.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: query International Visitor Arrivals by Place of Residence, Monthly, from the Singapore Department of Statistics. The tourism topic and dataset identifier make its scope clear, though it does not explicitly position itself against sibling query tools.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite: inspect dataset d_7e7b2ee60c6ffc962f80fef129cf306e first for filter fields. It also enumerates supported operations (exact filters, text search, fields, sort, pagination), but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives explicitly.

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