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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful execution behavior: default 6 levels, full expansion when root endcounts<=600, max_depth override, and has_children on truncated boundaries. This goes well beyond a generic 'get' and helps predict response shape, though it does not describe full node fields.

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 English description is front-loaded and compact, with each behavioral detail earning its place. The bilingual repetition adds redundancy but is not excessive and aids non-English callers.

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?

The description covers the important runtime semantics, but with no output schema it stops short of describing the full return shape; it only mentions the has_children boundary flag. This is adequate for invocation but not fully complete for predicting the entire response.

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 100% and already documents name, default 6, and unlimited expansion when endcounts<=600. The description reinforces these semantics (max_depth overrides, small-branch expansion) but adds little beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a haplogroup subtree') and immediately defines its scope via level counts and expansion rules. The subtree concept differentiates it from sibling tools like children_haplogroups (single-level) and get_haplogroup (single node), even without naming them.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling alternatives; no exclusions or criteria are given. The behavior (defaults, expansion) is described, but the agent must infer that this is the tool for recursive trees versus children_haplogroups.

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