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 'high accuracy' but doesn't cover other critical aspects like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what 'detailed location information' entails. 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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: 'Resolve a Singapore postal code to detailed location information with high accuracy.' It specifies the verb ('resolve'), resource ('Singapore postal code'), and outcome ('detailed location information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reverse_geocode' or 'search_location', which might offer similar location-related 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 doesn't mention sibling tools or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, such as 'reverse_geocode' for coordinates or 'search_location' for broader queries. There's no explicit context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on 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.