extract_gebiz

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful context: free access, no authentication, official data source, and the types of returned data. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but the disclosed no-auth behavior goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Four sentences with the main purpose and source front-loaded, followed by return types and usage guidance. The 'Unique: not available in any other MCP server' sentence is somewhat promotional, but it is brief and does not detract much.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly lists return content (tenders, contracts, agencies, amounts, closing dates) and explains how to search. Still, it omits the meaning of max_length, response formatting, and any pagination or truncation behavior, leaving an agent to guess on larger result sets.

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?

The url parameter is well explained in both schema and description with examples and the blank-all option. However, max_length is undocumented in the schema and the description does not clarify what it controls, so the 50% schema coverage gap is only partially compensated.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('Singapore Government procurement opportunities from GeBIZ via the data.gov.sg open API'), and names the official Ministry of Finance dataset. It also claims uniqueness among MCP servers, which helps distinguish it from siblings like extract_govcontracts.

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?

Provides clear usage context: search by keyword, agency name, or leave blank for all recent tenders. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage modes are actionable and sufficient for most invocations.

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