Singapore Location Intelligence MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is included, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The description is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 communicates the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the required busStopCode parameter upfront.

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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, doesn't help differentiate from siblings, and doesn't compensate for the lack of output schema by describing what the return value contains. The description leaves significant gaps for proper tool understanding.

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 'services, nearby amenities, accessibility information, and location context' which loosely maps to some parameters (includeServices, includeNearbyAmenities). However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get comprehensive details') and resources ('about a specific bus stop'), and lists the types of information included (services, amenities, accessibility, location). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bus_arrival' or 'search_bus_stops', 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. With siblings like 'get_bus_arrival' (which might focus on arrival times) and 'search_bus_stops' (which might search for stops), there's no indication of when this detailed lookup tool is preferred over those options.

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