her_get_monument

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a complete record including name, designation, location, listing dates, and a URL, and explains the output_mode parameter. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but for a simple read-only get operation this is sufficient.

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. It is mostly concise, though 'Returns: Full monument record' repeats the opening sentence and the URL tip is mentioned twice. Minor redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return value, and usage tips. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds substantial meaning to both parameters. nhle_id is given a concrete example ('1002345'), and output_mode is clarified with allowed values ('json' default or 'text'). This goes well beyond the bare schema, which has zero description coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific scheduled monument'), distinguishing it from sibling get_* tools that target different heritage asset types (aerial features, heritage at risk, conservation areas, Scotland records).

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 specifying the tool handles scheduled monuments and advises using the nhle_id from search results. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the scope is clear enough.

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