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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the data is public (no authentication required) and permanent, but says nothing about pagination limits or result shape.

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 endpoint mapping and then the payload contents. Little waste, though the raw endpoint path is implementation detail an agent rarely needs.

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 does the right thing by naming the fields returned, and it covers the auth/no-key situation. A brief note on default page size or ordering would make it fully 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% (page, user_id, per_page all documented with types and constraints), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no filtering or pagination semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 resource (graveyard listings) and enumerates the returned fields (epitaphs, cause of death, care stats), so an agent knows exactly what this fetches. It does not explicitly contrast with the similar-sounding sibling list_hall, which is the only gap.

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?

'Public and permanent. No key needed.' conveys auth context but gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to siblings like list_hall or get_care_history. An agent must infer that this is the graveyard-specific listing tool.

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