Find a Grave places

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: search results are ranked by Find a Grave's relevance rather than name, and the place hierarchy structure is explained. It doesn't detail pagination or error behavior, but the annotations plus the ranking warning provide solid transparency.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence overview of the hierarchy, then a bulleted list of the three actions with their requirements and outputs. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important caveat (relevance ranking) is included without bloat.

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 read-only tool with three simple actions and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the hierarchy, each action's inputs and outputs, and the ranking caveat. It doesn't describe the exact return shape, but there is no output schema and the description gives enough detail (locationId, type, full place, cemetery count) for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of locationId in narrowing searches, giving an example format (county_2452), and clarifying that name is needed for search while locationId is needed for get/children. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it exposes Find a Grave's place hierarchy (country → state → county → city) and lists three specific actions (search, get, children) with their inputs and outputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on places and how their ids narrow memorial and cemetery searches.

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 explicitly explains when to use each action: search for places/cemeteries by name, get for one place by locationId, children for direct sub-places. It also warns that search results are ranked by Find a Grave's own relevance, not by name, so the agent should verify the place before using an id. This is clear usage guidance with a caution.

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