genealogy_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the authentication requirement, which is helpful, but it omits other critical behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, rate limits, or error behavior. The 'maiden-name resolver' phrase hints at functionality but is vague.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and includes two additional pieces of information (resolver focus and token requirement) that are not immediately obvious from the schema. However, it may be too brief to fully compensate for missing annotations and schema descriptions.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain expected outputs, pagination, error handling, or how the query parameters interact. The description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 must compensate for explaining parameter meaning. The description's reference to 'maiden-name resolver' partially hints at the maiden parameter, but it does not explain first, last, or married parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema property names.

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's function as 'Search FamilySearch records', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. The additional qualifier '(maiden-name resolver)' adds nuance about its specialization, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like people_search or generate_candidates.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a prerequisite (FAMILYSEARCH_ACCESS_TOKEN) but lacks context for when this tool is preferred over sibling tools that might also perform record searches. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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