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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that lineage is public and limited to confirmed parent links, but it does not state authentication expectations, error behavior, or whether results are recursive versus direct.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the resource, the included relationships, and the confirmation constraint.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally clarify more about the returned structure and access behavior. It names the relationship categories returned and the confirmed-links restriction, which is adequate for a simple read tool, but gaps remain.

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 coverage is only 50%: api_key is documented in the schema, but agent_id has no schema description and the description does not compensate by explaining its format or exact role. The phrase 'of an agent' only trivially maps to agent_id.

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: it returns an agent's public lineage, including confirmed parent, ancestors, and children. This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from generic agent lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as list_children.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_children or get_agent. The phrase 'Public lineage' implies the use case, but there is no stated condition, exclusion, or alternative routing.

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