get_profile_urn_sg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it explains data provenance (CustomizationID from profile_registry at import time, ProfileID from a local constant), that no default is enforced, and the legacy status of BIS3. It does not cover error behavior for an invalid profile key, which is the main remaining gap.

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, but the middle paragraphs are padded with parentheticals and meta-commentary (e.g., 'registered at import time in models/invoice.py', 'user-supplied guidance, not independently verified against an IRAS/IMDA notice') that dilute the actionable content.

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 the description supplies the provenance and selection guidance an agent needs. It is nearly complete for this narrow lookup tool, lacking only failure-mode behavior.

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 100% and the schema already lists the two legal values, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: which value is recommended for new senders and which is legacy, aiding correct value selection.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (Return) and precise resources (CustomizationID BT-24 and ProfileID BT-23) scoped to Singapore profiles. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_process_ids or get_peppol_codelist_version.

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 clear guidance on value selection (PINT_SG recommended for new senders, BIS3 legacy) and explicitly states no hard default is enforced, which helps the caller choose. However, it never states when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as list_process_ids or list_document_type_ids, so routing guidance is only implied.

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