her_search_conservation_areas

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

No annotations are provided, but the description uses 'Search' and 'Queries' to clearly convey read-only behavior. It adds useful context about the dataset source and return fields, and notes that radius_m requires lat/lon. This is sufficient for a search tool, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or mention rate limits.

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 intro, Args, Returns, and Tips sections. Each parameter is given a single concise line, and the tips are actionable. No redundant or unnecessary content is present.

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 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers all parameters, return fields, and usage tips, including a pointer to the counting tool. It is comprehensive 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains every parameter with formats (e.g., bbox as 'xmin,ymin,xmax,ymax' in BNG), defaults (max_results 1-2000 default 50), and dependencies (radius_m requires lat/lon), adding substantial value beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Search conservation areas across England' and identifies the specific dataset (Historic England's Conservation Areas) and subject (areas of special architectural or historic interest). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like her_search_monuments or her_search_listed_buildings.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section recommending the use of lpa, bbox, or lat/lon filters, and explicitly suggests using her_count_conservation_areas first to gauge result size. This is clear practical guidance, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool versus fetching a single conservation area.

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