her_export_for_lidar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output behavior: 'Output includes easting/northing in BNG for spatial matching' and 'Each site has id, source, name, type, monument_type, period.' It also explains parameter behavior like include_aim 'when available' and include_nhle 'default true.' It does not explicitly state side effects or whether the operation is read-only, but for an export tool this is largely 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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Tips, and it front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly longer than necessary due to redundancy (e.g., bbox required mentioned in both Args and Tips), but each section provides useful information and the prose is efficient.

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 lack of output schema, the description compensates by explaining return format ('Known sites in LiDAR cross-reference format') and key fields. It also covers the prerequisite workflow with her_enrich_gateway. It does not mention potential errors or limitations, but for a moderately complex export tool, the provided details are largely sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining all 5 parameters: bbox format ('xmin,ymin,xmax,ymax' in BNG), gateway_sites as 'JSON array of Gateway records with easting/northing (output of her_enrich_gateway)', and output_mode as 'json' or 'text'. It also clarifies defaults and requiredness, adding significant value 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 the tool's purpose: 'Export heritage assets for LiDAR cross-referencing' and 'Produces a list of known monument centroids with metadata in the format expected by chuk-mcp-lidar spatial matching.' This distinguishes it from siblings like her_export_geojson by specifying the LiDAR-specific output format.

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?

Provides clear context and workflow: 'Use her_enrich_gateway first, then pass output as gateway_sites' and 'bbox is required for LiDAR export.' It implies when to use (LiDAR cross-referencing) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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