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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses that the obituary may be shortened if long (return-value truncation) and that family-private details kept for QR code visitors are deliberately excluded, which tells the agent the payload is intentionally incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the core purpose before the colon-separated field list, so an agent gets the point immediately. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical '(obituary, shortened if long)' is slightly awkwardly embedded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the needed work: it sketches the returned fields and flags what is withheld for privacy. It does not cover failure cases (unpublished or not-found memorials) or reinforce the region dimension, which keeps it short of complete.

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%, so both parameters (id and the au/global region enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Details of one published memorial') and then enumerates exactly what the record contains: dates, life story/obituary, service details, tribute count, funeral home, and link. The singular 'one published memorial' implicitly contrasts with the list-returning sibling search_memorials, so an agent can tell fetch-by-id apart from search without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the required id parameter (fetch the full record for a known memorial), but the description itself gives no when-to-use statement, no alternative routing (e.g. use search_memorials to obtain an id), and no exclusion conditions. The only routing hint lives in the schema's id description, not the description text.

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