her_cross_reference

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses the core algorithm: it classifies each candidate based on proximity thresholds (match_radius_m, near_radius_m), explains the meaning of match/near/novel, and notes optional inclusion of AIM and Gateway data. It doesn't mention error handling or side effects, but the tool's read-only nature is implied.

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 structured with Args, Returns, and Tips sections. All information is relevant; the tips provide actionable workflow guidance without redundancy. It's longer than some but efficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers all inputs, defines the output classification, and provides integration context with sibling tools. It gives enough to invoke the tool correctly without further research.

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 0%, but the description thoroughly documents all 7 parameters with types, defaults, and examples (e.g., candidates as JSON array with easting/northing, designation_types as comma-separated values). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Cross-reference' with a clear object 'candidate locations against known heritage assets', and defines the output classification (match/near/novel), distinguishing it from sibling search tools by its proximity-classification behavior.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section explicitly instructs when to use complementary tools: 'Use her_enrich_gateway first', 'Use her_export_for_lidar to get known sites in the same area', and recommends include_aim for LiDAR workflows. This provides clear workflow context and alternatives.

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