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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only non-PII data (names and ages) is returned, and notes the 'no PII beyond what they shared' privacy qualification. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple read operation, the description is adequately transparent.

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?

A single 15-word sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a parenthetical with key details. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality (returning names and ages) and adds a privacy note. It could specify the output format more precisely (e.g., array of objects) but is sufficient for the complexity level.

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 input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline is 3 per rubric. The description adds no additional parameter information because there are none.

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 verb 'Returns', the resource 'parent's kids on file', and explicitly lists the data returned ('names + ages') with a privacy caveat. It distinguishes from sibling write/delete tools like parent_add_kid and parent_remove_kid.

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 usage when you want to view a parent's kids, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., parent_my_household might also list kids). No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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