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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: results are newest-first and each result carries dates, the funeral home, and a link.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; every clause carries information. Slightly clipped phrasing ('Newest first.' as a fragment) is the only minor cost.

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 5 optional parameters fully documented in the schema, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: ordering and the shape of returned records. An agent has enough to call it 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%, so schema fields already document name, type, region, page and limit. The description only echoes the name and people/pets dimensions and adds nothing about region handling or pagination, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('published online memorials') and the scope (people and pets, by name). The resource noun naturally separates it from siblings like search_notices and search_funeral_directors, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 domain ('published online memorials') but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance versus search_notices or search_funeral_directors. The 'Omit for both' hints for type/region live in the schema, not the description.

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