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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful structural context (the walk starts at the workspace root and ends at token_id), but says nothing about behavior on an unknown or out-of-scope token_id, or whether the chain is inclusive of both endpoints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the directionality (root down to token_id) is conveyed in the fewest possible words.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema so return values need no prose, and has only one optional parameter. Still, the undocumented 'self' default is a real gap for calling the tool correctly, and the lack of any routing guidance against four related lineage/token siblings leaves the definition thin.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does clarify that token_id is the terminus of the returned chain, which is meaningful, but it never explains the 'self' default or that resolving it to the calling token is what happens when the argument is omitted.

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 ('Return') and a precise resource: the chain of tokens from the workspace root down to token_id. This distinctively identifies an ancestry-walk, separating it in spirit from get_token (a single token) and list_token_tree, though it does not name those siblings 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_token, list_token_tree, or get_lineage_attestation, nor any stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose statement.

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