sg_address_intel

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of transparency. It details the return data comprehensively (district, planning area, etc., plus 140+ MRT stations covering all lines). This provides good insight into tool behavior. Minor lacking: no mention of error handling for invalid postal codes, but acceptable.

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 extremely concise: one main sentence listing returns, plus two short clarifications. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists what the tool returns. It covers the key aspects of address intelligence. However, it could clarify the format of coordinates or MRT distance/time, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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 schema already describes the single 'postal_code' parameter with format and example. The tool description adds context about what the parameter's value will yield (the full intelligence), but it does not add new semantic detail about the parameter itself beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool name 'sg_address_intel' combined with the description clearly states it provides full address intelligence for a Singapore postal code. The list of returned items (district, planning area, market region, HDB town, coordinates, nearest MRT stations) is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'sg_mrt_near' which focus only on MRT stations.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternative tools in the sibling list. For example, it doesn't explain differences from 'sg_postal_lookup' or 'sg_mrt_near'. The only contextual hint is '(FREE)' indicating no cost, but no usage guidance.

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