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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the data source ('on-chain derivation graph') and the shape of the result (parents, ancestry, adoption), which matters with no output schema.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core concept (lineage) and followed by the returning fields. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does adequately (parents, full ancestry, downstream adoption). It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only edge cases like what happens for a piece with no derivations.

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?

Single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('token id'), so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the id beyond what the schema provides — no format hints such as 'piece token id vs account 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?

States a specific resource (lineage of a KOINE piece) and enumerates what it covers: parents, full ancestry, downstream adoption. This clearly separates it from a generic piece getter like koine_get_piece, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer 'use this when you need ancestry/adoption data' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to, or routing to siblings such as koine_get_piece for plain detail.

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