Find a Grave GraphQL query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds value beyond those: it states mutations are refused, full schema introspection is disabled (with a workaround), and that results are raw (since other tools 'projected to fit'). This contextualizes the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint without contradicting them. No annotation contradiction.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs constraints, introspection workaround, and a pointer to docs into the same sentence. Every clause adds value; there is no fluff. Slightly long, but earned length.

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 generic GraphQL tool with no output schema, the description directs to docs/endpoints.md, lists useful queries/types, and gives an introspection workaround. It covers the key pitfalls (mutations, introspection) and provides a path to discover query shapes. Missing error-handling or rate-limit notes are minor for this tool's complexity.

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%, and both 'query' and 'variables' already include concrete examples in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Run a read-only GraphQL query against Find a Grave's own API'. It explicitly notes this is for data 'the other tools do not return', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like findagrave_memorial and findagrave_cemetery. The purpose is unambiguous and contextually differentiated.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer the other tools: their results are projected to fit and their filters are checked.' This tells the agent when to use alternatives and why. It also states mutations are refused, setting a clear boundary. This is model guidance, leaving nothing to inference.

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