Retrieve Hong Kong student visa and entry permit approval statistics by year. Access official Immigration Department data to analyze approval trends for specific periods.
Statistics on Student Visa / Entry Permit Approved in Hong Kong. Data source: Immigration Department
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Filter by specific year |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only approved visas/entry permits are included and attributes the data to the Immigration Department. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention any limitations of the statistics, though that risk is modest for a statistics-retrieval tool.
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 description is one compact sentence plus a source attribution; there is no filler. The core subject is front-loaded and the extra data-source detail is relevant context.
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?
Given the low complexity, a single fully-documented optional parameter, and a present output schema, the description covers the essential context. It could mention that omitting the year returns all years, but the schema's default already communicates this, so nothing critical is missing.
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?
There is one optional year parameter and the schema describes it fully. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies a specific statistic (approved Student Visa / Entry Permit in Hong Kong) and names the data source. It is distinguishable from the sibling Foreign Domestic Helpers tool by the subject matter, though it does not state a verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns' beyond the tool name.
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 domain is clear enough that an agent can infer this tool is for Hong Kong student visa statistics, and the sibling name indicates a different domain. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.