her_search_designations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the operation as 'Search' and explains parameters and tips, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention any limitations like data freshness or permissions. The lack of output schema also leaves some uncertainty about return structure.

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 purpose, covered types, Args, Returns, and Tips. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasings, but overall it effectively organizes essential information for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all parameters, provides tips, and mentions that results include designation_type. However, it lacks explicit constraints on parameter combinations (e.g., radius search requires both lat and lon) and does not detail pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter. It is satisfactory but not exhaustive.

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 must fully define parameters. It does so effectively in the Args section, explaining each parameter's purpose, format (e.g., bbox format, lat/lon for radius), and defaults (e.g., max_results default 50). It also lists possible values for designation_type, adding meaning beyond the schema's string type.

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 states 'Search across all designation types in the NHLE' and lists the specific types, providing a clear verb (Search) and resource (designation types). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like her_search_listed_buildings by being a generic cross-type search.

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 section advises to leave designation_type empty to search all types and to use her_count_features first for quick totals, offering guidance on when to use and an alternative action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., preferring dedicated search tools for a single type), so it lacks full exclusion criteria.

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