singapore_search_acra

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral fact that no automatic cross-partition scan occurs and points at the output schema for provider field names, which is helpful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about result limits or matching behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. Slightly terse given the parameter surface, but structurally sound.

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 and the description correctly deflects field-name questions to it. However, for a five-parameter, partition-partitioned search with zero schema descriptions, the missing guidance on partition choice and pagination leaves an agent with real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it explains that name or UEN are the search keys and that partition must be A-Z or Others. It does not explain limit/offset semantics or the UEN pattern, leaving two of five parameters undocumented.

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: search one detailed ACRA partition by entity name or UEN, and scopes it to a single partition rather than the whole dataset. It distinguishes itself from catalog-level siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use for non-partition business lookups.

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?

The constraint 'Select A-Z or Others explicitly; no automatic scan of all partitions' is a real usage rule, but it gives no guidance on which partition to pick for a given entity, nor when to prefer this over singapore_query_businesses or singapore_search_catalog.

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