her_search_scotland_designations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It says the tool 'Queries HES Designations' (implying read-only), lists the output fields (type, category, location), and discloses parameter constraints (radius_m requires lat/lon). It lacks explicit mention of authentication or rate limits, but for a search tool, the core behavioral context is well covered.

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 organized with clear 'Args', 'Returns', and 'Tips for LLMs' sections, each sentence providing distinct value. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the core purpose before details, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 a complex 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is highly complete. It specifies the query types, parameter formats, return contents, and relationships to sibling tools, leaving no major ambiguity 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 8 parameters with zero descriptions, and the description compensates by detailing every parameter: allowed values for designation_type, partial/case-insensitive behavior for name, coordinate system for bbox (BNG EPSG:27700), lat/lon and radius dependency, and defaults for max_results and output_mode. This goes far 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 names the specific verb 'Search' and the resource 'Scottish designated heritage assets', then enumerates the designation types queried (listed buildings, scheduled monuments, gardens, battlefields, world heritage sites, conservation areas, historic marine protected areas). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like her_search_designations (English) and her_search_scotland (all Scottish sites).

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 instructs to use this tool for formally designated Scottish assets, and points to her_search_scotland for non-designated sites and to her_search_designations for English NHLE sources. This is explicit when-to-use and alternative guidance, covering both exclusive and inclusive cases.

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