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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the result set is restricted to Forever In Our Hearts partners, and since there is no output schema it also discloses the returned fields (name, logo, address, contact details, notices/memorials site).

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 tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return payload second. Nothing is wasted, though the return-field list makes the second sentence slightly long.

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, including the return fields is exactly the right compensation. It covers purpose, scope and output shape; the only gap is the absence of guidance on how the five optional filters combine or on pagination behavior.

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 every parameter (page, limit, query, region, country) is already documented in the schema with bounds, enums and formats. The description only restates the query dimensions and adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and a precise resource (funeral homes that are Forever In Our Hearts partners), and enumerates the searchable dimensions. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which operate on memorials and notices rather than funeral homes.

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 only implied: an agent can infer you call this to locate a partner funeral home, but the description never states when to prefer it over search_memorials/search_notices, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit alternative routing is provided.

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