additive_hierarchy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the concept of 'known' relationships, implying non-exhaustiveness, which aligns with openWorldHint. No contradictions, but little added insight beyond annotations.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loading the key action. It is efficient, but could benefit from a brief second sentence clarifying the parameter or output scope. Nonetheless, it achieves conciseness without waste.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It misses details like error handling or data scope, but for a straightforward retrieval, it passes the bar. Improvement would add context about the return format.

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%. The description mentions 'GHED variable' but the parameter is named 'indicator_code', with no explanation of their relationship. The agent must infer that indicator_code identifies a GHED variable. This is insufficient for low coverage.

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 verb 'return' and the resource 'additive child relationships for a GHED variable'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'explain_indicator_relationship' by focusing on returning existing relationships rather than explaining them. However, 'GHED' is not explained, which assumes domain knowledge.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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