Singapore Location Intelligence MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does and how it can be used.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, error handling, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about the output format and operational characteristics.

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 description mentions three search methods ('location name, coordinates, or road name') which map to the 'location', 'lat/lng', and implied 'road name' parameters, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the action ('Find') and resource ('bus stops') with specific search methods ('by location name, coordinates, or road name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_bus_stops' or 'get_bus_stop_details', which would require more specific differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_bus_stops' or 'get_bus_stop_details'. There's no mention of prerequisites, optimal use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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