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 'real-time' arrival times, which implies dynamic data, but does not cover other traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key aspects like 'real-time' and 'specific bus stop.'

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, such as hinting at return values or error conditions, but it does not.

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 (e.g., busStopCode as a 5-digit code, serviceNo as optional, format with enum values). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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: 'Get real-time bus arrival times and information for a specific bus stop.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('bus arrival times and information'), and scope ('for a specific bus stop'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bus_stop_details' or 'search_bus_stops,' which might provide overlapping or related information.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_bus_stop_details' (which might provide static stop info) or 'search_bus_stops' (which might help find stop codes), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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