her_export_geojson

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: bbox is expected in BNG, output coordinates are WGS84, max_results has a ceiling of 2000, and output_mode supports json or text. It does not mention errors or rate limits, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 Args, Returns, and Tips sections, and the opening sentence is front-loaded. There is minor redundancy between the first sentence and the second paragraph, but each section earns its place.

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 no annotations, the description covers parameter meanings, return type (GeoJSON FeatureCollection), coordinate system, and practical tips. It lacks possible values for designation_type and the exact meaning of text output mode, but for a straightforward export tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 documents all five parameters with concrete detail: bbox format ('xmin,ymin,xmax,ymax' in BNG), name partial match, max_results default and maximum, and output_mode default. This fully compensates for the empty 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 first sentence is specific: 'Export heritage assets as GeoJSON FeatureCollection.' This clearly states the verb, resource, and output format, distinguishing it from the search/get/count siblings and even from her_export_for_lidar by naming GeoJSON.

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 provides clear usage context by mentioning suitability for QGIS, Leaflet, or other GIS tools, and includes LLM tips such as using bbox to limit the export area. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, 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.