get_hill_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description lists return fields and indicates a read operation, but it does not disclose potential 'best match' behavior (which appears in the schema) or behavior on not-found. It provides basic transparency but lacks edge-case behavior.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get full details for one hill') and lists the details. It is efficient and clear, though the list of fields adds length; it still avoids wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return values by listing the fields returned. For a simple get-details tool with one parameter, this is sufficient context. It could mention what happens if no hill is found, but that is not critical given the simple nature.

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 schema already covers the single parameter 'hill' with a description including example and best-match behavior. The description repeats 'by name or DoBIH number' but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline for high coverage applies.

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 the tool gets full details for a single hill, listing specific attributes (height, drop, grid reference, coordinates, county, classifications, links). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like search_hills and find_nearby_hills.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is for one hill and how to specify it (by name or DoBIH number), which gives clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the singular focus implies this is not for searching or listing, making usage fairly clear.

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