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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait—stable ordering for full pagination (recommending order=name)—which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as read-only nature, outcome on no matches, or any limits/rates beyond the schema's max per_page. For a listing tool, the critical safety profile is implied but not explicit.

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 two compact sentences (English + Chinese) with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concrete pagination tip. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding, making it highly efficient relative to its length.

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?

This tool has 8 parameters, none required, no output schema, and low schema coverage. Yet the description omits explanations for most parameters, default behavior, ordering implications, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent would face significant uncertainty about invoking it correctly, especially for non-obvious parameters like level and order_dir. The description is far too sparse for this complexity.

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 only 38% (only name, parent, exclude_mf have descriptions). The tool description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters like page, level, order, per_page, and order_dir; it only recommends order=name for pagination, which is a usage hint rather than an explanation of the parameter's meaning. With this low coverage, the description should have at least outlined the remaining parameters, but it does not.

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 searches or lists paternal haplogroups by fuzzy name and/or parent, with a specific resource and filter criteria. It also mentions stable ordering for full pagination. While it doesn't explicitly name siblings, the verb+resource+filter combination makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from children_haplogroups or subtree_haplogroups.

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 for general search/list of haplogroups with filtering and pagination needs, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools (e.g., children_haplogroups, subtree_haplogroups) or state when NOT to use this tool. The pagination note hints at one scenario, but exclusions and routing are left to inference.

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