Get a family hub

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output format (markdown) and content (written overview plus complete concept roster), which conveys the nature of this get operation. It doesn't address edge cases or errors, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient transparency.

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 concise sentences. The first defines the return value and content, the second gives usage context. There is no wasted words or redundant information, making it well-structured and direct.

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 (one enum parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what it returns and when to use it. It could mention potential error cases or the exact markdown structure, but it's adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description and enum for the 'key' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 defines what the tool returns: a family's hub page as markdown, containing a written overview and complete concept roster. It also distinguishes this from siblings by indicating it's for whole analysis areas like 'SMC' or 'Wyckoff', not individual indicators or concepts.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use after library_list_families, or when the user asks about a whole area like SMC or Wyckoff.' This gives clear when-to-use context and implies not for individual concepts, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for those cases.

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