search_death_notices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals sorting order (newest first, then surname alphabetically), the requirement of at least one filter, and that filters combine, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or pagination details, but these are either in schema or less critical, so the disclosure is strong.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear opening statement, a brief usage requirement, a sorting note, and a pointer to a related tool. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vocabulary-overloaded content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 params, all optional) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selecting and invoking the tool. It covers search scope, filter constraints, sorting, and alternatives. It could add a bit more about pagination or edge cases, but the schema and output schema already provide structural details, making this adequately complete.

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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that filters can be combined and emphasizing that at least one of name, county, or date range should be provided, which is a usage constraint not explicitly encoded in 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?

The description opens with a specific verb 'Search' and a concrete resource 'death notices on RIP.ie', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing users to get_death_notice for full details, clarifying that this tool is for search/filtering rather than retrieving full notices.

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 clearly states that all filters are optional and can be combined, and that at least one filter should be provided, giving concrete usage guidance. It also points to an alternative tool (get_death_notice) for detailed information, but it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, though the alternative reference implies a search-vs-detail split.

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