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 'comprehensive journey' with 'step-by-step instructions, route visualization, and contextual information,' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (since no output schema exists). For a complex planning tool with 8 parameters, this 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose: 'Plan a comprehensive journey with step-by-step instructions, route visualization, and contextual information.' It's appropriately sized with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function without unnecessary details.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, output expectations, or usage context. For a journey planning tool that likely involves real-time data and multiple transport modes, more information 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 meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, dependencies, or provide examples of usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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: 'Plan a comprehensive journey with step-by-step instructions, route visualization, and contextual information.' It specifies the verb ('plan') and resource ('journey'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive planning rather than specific lookups like finding bus stops or weather conditions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., it could mention it's for multi-modal planning vs. single-mode tools).

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might be better for specific tasks (e.g., using 'get_bus_arrival' for real-time updates or 'search_location' for location resolution). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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