get_ancestry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response indicates which date it describes, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or failure modes for nodes that don't exist.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose before the return shape and parameter notes. Minor redundancy between the first sentence and the second, which both restate the ancestry concept.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description covers the main node parameters. However, for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the omission of title_number and any date-format detail leaves the definition partially incomplete.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully states that part/subpart/section/appendix accept int or string and ties date to the response, but leaves title_number (default 48), required-ness, and the date parameter's format entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (ancestry/breadcrumb path) and enumerates the input node types (section, part, appendix). It clearly describes the returned hierarchy shape, but does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_cfr_structure or list_sections_in_part.

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?

It gives an implied use case ('useful for understanding where a section sits in the CFR hierarchy'), which is clear context, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance and no exclusions relative to get_cfr_structure or get_cfr_content.

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