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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful qualifier, that only *published* crematories are searched, which is behavior beyond the annotations. Pagination and result-shape behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the subject of the search.

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 an 8-parameter tool with cursor pagination and no output schema, the one-line description is thin: it never mentions pagination, result ordering, or the published-only scope's implications. The rich schema compensates substantially, but the description itself is only barely adequate.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters with enum meaning, slug formats, and cursor semantics. The description's 'text, place and category' merely names the filter families already present in the schema, adding no new semantics. 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 clear verb (Search) and resource (published pet crematories) plus the three filter axes (text, place, category). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_listing or list_places, leaving the search-vs-fetch distinction to be inferred.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent must infer that this is the discovery tool and get_listing the detail tool from names alone; the description offers nothing on when this is preferred over listing places or categories.

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