Get family members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by explicitly stating 'Privacy-safe: no emails, phones, or full DOBs,' which is beyond the annotations and clarifies the data exposure. This is valuable for the agent's decision-making, though it doesn't disclose other traits like pagination or ordering.

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 two brief sentences: the first states the core function, the second adds a meaningful privacy clarification. There is no fluff or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value as 'family members with relationship labels.' It also adds privacy context. It does not explicitly describe the return structure (e.g., array vs. object) or any limits, but for a simple read-only list operation, the information is sufficient to understand what to expect.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no burden for explaining parameter syntax or meaning. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage) with no properties. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description provides no conflicting or redundant info, so this score is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('the authenticated user's family members') with a notable detail (relationship labels). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_family_member (which searches for a specific member) or get_person_profile (which returns details of a single person) by describing a list of all family members.

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 implies usage: use this tool to retrieve the user's family members. It provides the context of 'authenticated user' but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., find_family_member for searching, get_person_profile for a single person). No exclusions or explicit alternative guidance is provided, leaving usage to be inferred rather than clearly stated.

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