her_count_conservation_areas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'fast, no geometry returned' and specifies output modes ('json' or 'text'). This is good but could further clarify if the count is an estimate or exact, and any error conditions. Still, it provides useful behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured with a title line, args section, returns, and tips. Every sentence adds value, and the important information is front-loaded. No redundancy.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameters, return value, and usage tips. It could note whether the count is exact or an estimate, but 'quick count' implies possible approximation. Overall, it is nearly complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: explains bbox format as 'xmin,ymin,xmax,ymax' in BNG (EPSG:27700), defines query as a name filter, lpa as Local Planning Authority filter, and output_mode as response format. This adds essential meaning beyond the 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 'Count conservation areas in an area' with added qualifiers 'fast, no geometry returned', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like her_search_conservation_areas that return full records. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use before her_search_conservation_areas to gauge result size' and 'Tips for LLMs: Call this before her_search_conservation_areas to check how many areas match before fetching full records.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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