Singapore Location Intelligence MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits like fuzzy matching, Singapore abbreviation support, and pattern recognition. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (though there's 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 perfectly concise - two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence establishes core functionality, the second provides concrete examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 6-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about search capabilities but lacks information about return format, error handling, or performance characteristics. It's adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about Singapore abbreviations and query patterns, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 performs 'Advanced search for bus stops' with specific capabilities like fuzzy matching, Singapore abbreviations, and pattern recognition. It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_bus_stops' by emphasizing advanced search features and provides concrete query examples like 'Opp Blk 910'.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for advanced bus stop searches with Singapore-specific patterns), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'find_bus_stops' or 'search_location'. The examples help guide appropriate usage scenarios.

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