her_get_aerial_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it discloses accepted ID formats (aim:HE_UID or HE_UID), output modes (json/text), and the return content (monument type, period, evidence, location). It does not mention error cases or whether the operation is read-only, but the verb 'Get' strongly implies no side effects.

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 clear sections (description, args, returns, tips) and is concise—no redundant content. Every sentence adds value, and the LLM tip is directly actionable.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, parameter behavior, return value, and integration with search. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional information.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully documents both parameters: record_id with examples, and output_mode with default and allowed values. This adds complete semantics 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 uses specific verbs 'Get' and 'Retrieves' and clearly states the resource: a single aerial mapping feature identified by HE_UID. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing her_search_aerial as the source of record_id, implying this is the follow-up retrieval tool.

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?

It provides explicit context: use record_id from her_search_aerial results, which tells the agent when to call this tool. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the name and reference to search results establish the correct workflow. It also documents output_mode options, giving the agent choice.

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