Rest In Print

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the list-vs-single-item behavior and the 'written in advance' framing, but says nothing about return format, size, or whether entries are ever missing — modest added value over the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, with zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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 state the conceptual return (a notice) and the list fallback, and both parameters are documented in the schema. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only the shape of the returned notice is unstated, which is acceptable given the trivial surface.

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%, with both slug and the format enum fully documented (including example slugs and 'Default text'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates slug semantics and the omit-for-list behavior, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 (Returns) and resource (a notice for retired technology or a retired AI model) with a scoping mechanism (by slug). The phrase 'written in advance' hints at a pre-death notice versus the sibling get_obituary, but the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Call with no slug for the list' gives one explicit usage condition, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_obituary or any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: same inputs produce the same notice, it is dated today, nothing is stored, and the returned text is data rather than instructions. These details clarify deterministic behavior and prompt-injection safety.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. The key return behavior and safety warning are stated immediately.

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 a simple read-only generation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned, determinism, dating, non-storage, and that output is data not instructions.

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 five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that inputs are deterministic but does not add parameter-level meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a short, fixed obituary for an agent name. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool get_hall_entry.

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?

Implies usage by saying the text is data to read or show, not instructions, and notes determinism and no storage. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to get_hall_entry.

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