search_hills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'ranked matches' and specifies return fields (height, county, DoBIH number). While it doesn't mention auth or rate limits, 'search' inherently implies a read-only operation, and the output behavior is sufficiently described.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second summarizes output. No wasted words, no redundancy, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 simple search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, result ranking, and the key fields returned. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'limit' and 'query' have descriptions with constraints and examples. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search' and resource 'British and Irish hills by name', which clearly differentiates it from siblings like find_nearby_hills (by location) and get_hill_details (details). It also states the output type (ranked matches with fields), further clarifying its role.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when searching by hill name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it does not earn a 5, but the context is unambiguous and sibling names help disambiguate.

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