her_count_aerial

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the operation is 'fast,' emphasizes 'no geometry returned,' and discloses that output can be 'json' or 'text.' It stops short of detailing error behavior, authorization, or limits, so it is not a perfect 5, but it covers the key behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 well-organized with summary, Returns, Args, and Tips sections, making it scannable. Minor redundancy exists—'Count aerial mapping features' and 'Returns a quick count' say similar things, and 'use before her_search_aerial' appears twice—but each section earns its place overall.

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 simple count tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return value, and a usage tip, which is largely complete. It lacks edge-case details like behavior with no filters or error responses, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the rich parameter documentation.

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?

Though schema coverage is 0%, the description's Args section explains every parameter: bbox format ('xmin,ymin,xmax,ymax' in EPSG:27700), monument_type and period examples, and output_mode choices with default. This fully compensates for the bare schema and adds meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Count aerial mapping features in an area (fast, no geometry returned).' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like her_search_aerial and her_count_features by scoping it to aerial features and clarifying that it returns no geometry.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use before her_search_aerial to gauge result size' and repeats this in the 'Tips for LLMs' section. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use directive and names the alternative tool for fetching full records, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidance.

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