singapore_search_address

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely useful traits not in annotations: an authentication token requirement and the fact that paging follows provider pages with roughly 10 results each — important for interpreting pagination 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity, then the auth prerequisite, then pagination behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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. Auth, coordinate systems, and page sizing are covered. The only real gap is routing guidance relative to the reverse geocode and coordinate conversion siblings.

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 carries the burden. It does clarify that the query can be an address, building name, or postal code, and that page counts provider pages of ~10 results — meaningful additions — but it gives no syntax, normalization, or format expectations for the query string or the page parameter's interaction with result counts.

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 (geocoding) and resource (address/building/postal-code) and identifies the provider (OneMap) plus output coordinate systems (WGS84, SVY21). It implicitly distinguishes itself from singapore_reverse_geocode, but never names that sibling or the forward/reverse distinction explicitly.

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?

'Requires ONEMAP_TOKEN' gives a real prerequisite, and geocoding of an address implies the use case. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over singapore_reverse_geocode or singapore_convert_coordinates, so selection must be inferred from the name.

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