explore_genealogy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the dataset breadth (1,100+ persons), the return shape (family tree with generation numbers and relationship types), and an extra artifact (a Mermaid diagram).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, and the sibling routing note is placed last where it belongs. Slightly verbose in the third paragraph's list of example questions, but every sentence still carries routing or output information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the return (family tree with generation numbers, relationship types, Mermaid diagram). Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotation-declared safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/size limits are unaddressed.

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 100% and each parameter (person, direction enum, generations) is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces direction ('ancestors and/or descendants') and generational depth conceptually but adds no syntax, defaults, or edge-case rules beyond the schema.

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 ('Trace') and resource ('genealogy') with scope spelled out ('ancestors and/or descendants across multiple generations'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling lookup_name by describing that tool's single-generation behavior.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('lookup_name') and the condition that selects it ('For a single generation ... immediate family without the traversal'). It also enumerates the question types this tool is meant for (Abraham-to-David line, tribal ancestry, Messianic lineage), leaving little to inference.

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