her_enrich_gateway

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the tool is slow (1-2 minutes for 100 records), only returns records with valid easting/northing, and explains the mechanism (parsing grid references and/or fetching detail pages). It also mentions default behavior for fetch_details and output_mode.

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-structured with a summary paragraph, args list, returns line, and a Tips section. Every sentence provides valuable information—performance guidance, workflow integration, and complementary tools—with no filler. The bullet-point formatting enhances scannability.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the purpose, parameters, return value (Gateway records with resolved coordinates), performance behavior, and workflow context. The Tips section addresses practical usage patterns, making it complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with examples (what, where, when) and defaults (max_results, fetch_details, output_mode). This goes beyond the schema, providing all necessary semantic detail for an agent to construct correct inputs.

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 it fetches Heritage Gateway records with resolved coordinates, distinguishing it from a plain search tool. It also explains the enrichment purpose (resolving BNG coordinates) and mentions its suitability for her_cross_reference, making the tool's purpose 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?

The Tips for LLMs section provides explicit workflow guidance: use before her_cross_reference, pass output as gateway_sites, and run complementary tools (her_search_monuments, her_search_aerial) in parallel. It also clarifies scope by noting Gateway records are local HER data not in NHLE or AIM, effectively indicating when this tool is appropriate.

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