her_get_monument

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a complete record with specific fields, which is good, but does not explicitly mention read-only behavior or any side effects. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but could be improved.

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 description, Args, Returns, and Tips. It is front-loaded with the purpose and is concise, but the Args and Returns sections could be integrated into the main description to reduce redundancy.

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 tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient information for a simple retrieval tool. It explains the purpose, parameters, and gives usage tips. It does not cover error handling, but that is acceptable for this straightforward tool.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds parameter meanings in the Args section: nhle_id as 'NHLE list entry number (e.g. '1002345')' and output_mode as 'Response format — 'json' (default) or 'text''. This compensates well for the missing schema details, though 'text' format is not further elaborated.

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 'Get full details for a specific scheduled monument.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'scheduled monument' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like search and other get tools by focusing on scheduled monuments.

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 advises using nhle_id from search results, providing clear guidance. However, there is no explicit statement on when not to use the tool or alternatives, though the context of siblings implies this tool is for retrieving full records after search.

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