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. It mentions 'supports fuzzy search and intelligent query analysis' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic functionality, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output format looks like (especially critical since 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence establishes core functionality and scope, while the second adds behavioral context about search capabilities. There's no wasted verbiage or repetition of information already in the schema.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (location objects? coordinates? addresses?), how results are ranked, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The behavioral context provided is minimal 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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'addresses, postal codes, landmarks, or building names' which aligns with the query parameter documentation, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the well-documented schema.

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 searches for locations in Singapore using various input types (addresses, postal codes, landmarks, building names), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_bus_stops' or 'find_landmarks_and_facilities' that might overlap in 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 like 'search_bus_stops', 'find_landmarks_and_facilities', or 'resolve_postal_code'. It mentions what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions compared to sibling tools.

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