her_search_conservation_areas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the search as querying a dataset and returning matches, but does not explicitly state side effects, limitations, or error handling. Since it's a read-only search, the lack of behavioral depth is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 summary, args, returns, and tips. Though slightly lengthy due to parameter documentation, every sentence serves a purpose. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, dataset origin, parameter details, return format, and usage advice. It is complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 provides detailed explanations for all 9 parameters, including expected formats (e.g., bbox as 'xmin,ymin,xmax,ymax' in BNG), defaults, and constraints (max_results 1-2000). 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 description starts with 'Search conservation areas across England,' a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the dataset (Historic England's Conservation Areas) and including tips that reference her_count_conservation_areas as an alternative.

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 explicitly tells when to use lpa, spatial parameters (bbox, lat/lon), and suggests using her_count_conservation_areas first to gauge result size. This provides clear usage guidance and alternative tool references.

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