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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results are limited to 'published' providers, but it does not describe pagination behavior or output structure.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to scope and purpose.

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?

The rich schema covers all parameters and annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to repeat those details. However, for an eight-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is minimal and leaves the agent without guidance on result shape, pagination, or how it relates to sibling tools.

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 all eight parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description groups search dimensions into 'text, place and category', which maps loosely to q, location parameters, and category, but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('published funeral providers'), and scopes it to text, place, and category. It is clear enough to distinguish a search operation from detail tools like get_listing, but it does not explicitly name the sibling enumeration tools such as list_categories or list_places.

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 implies that this tool is for searching providers by text, place, and category, which gives some context for use. However, it does not state when to prefer this over get_listing, list_places, list_categories, or how to handle cases with no query or only a place filter.

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