Singapore Location Intelligence MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'discover' and 'search around a location', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant 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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and scope, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key elements like location, resources, and data source.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), output format, and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a discovery tool with rich input options, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., combining 'categories' and 'facilityType') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Discover landmarks, facilities, and points of interest near a location using Singapore's comprehensive thematic data.' It specifies the action ('discover'), resources ('landmarks, facilities, and points of interest'), and geographical scope ('near a location' in Singapore). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_location' or 'resolve_postal_code', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. It mentions 'Singapore's comprehensive thematic data' but doesn't specify what makes it unique compared to siblings like 'search_location' or 'get_nearby_taxis'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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