get_death_notice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation (getting details), but it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), authentication needs, or that it returns a single record vs. a list. The absence of any side-effect warnings is acceptable for a simple get, but richer context like 'returns 404 if not found' would improve 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely lists what the tool returns. No wasted words, and the structure is clear.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what fields are included, and the existing output schema handles return value details. There is nothing missing given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter notice_id with a clear explanation of its origin (search results or RIP.ie URL). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't exceed that.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific death notice'), and enumerates the included content (description, funeral arrangements, photo, family information). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools list_counties and search_death_notices, which are about browsing/searching rather than fetching one record.

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 a workflow: search first, then get details for a specific notice. The parameter description reinforces this by noting the ID comes from search results or a RIP.ie URL. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the alternative for finding IDs, so it falls short of a 5.

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