her_get_scotland_record

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 discloses that this is a retrieval operation and details the return fields ('site type, form, location, grid reference'). It also explains the output_mode options. It doesn't cover error handling or permissions, but for a read-only get operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 opens with a concise one-sentence summary, then uses clearly labeled Args, Returns, and Tips for LLMs sections. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized without 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?

The tool has only 2 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the meaning and format of both parameters, the content of the return value, and provides a practical tip on sourcing record_id from her_search_scotland. This is complete 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only lists types and defaults. The description compensates thoroughly: it explains that record_id accepts 'scotland:CANMOREID' or just the ID, and that output_mode can be 'json' (default) or 'text'. Both parameters are fully documented 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 first sentence 'Get full details of a Scottish NRHE record by Canmore ID' uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('Scottish NRHE record'), and references the Canmore ID. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling get_ tools like her_get_monument or her_get_aerial_feature by scope.

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 a clear workflow context by advising 'Use record_id from her_search_scotland results.' It also explains accepted input formats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

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