Get a family hub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output type (markdown), the two main sections (overview and concept roster), and the informational/read-only nature of the call. It does not mention error cases or auth, but for a simple retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads what the tool returns, then gives a compact usage rule with concrete examples, all in minimal space.

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 a single enum-constrained parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides everything needed to invoke correctly: what is returned, in what format, and when to use it. The sibling routing is also covered.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the key parameter with an enum and an example value ('smc-ict'). The description adds usage context but no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 identifies the resource ('a family's hub page') and specifies the deliverable format ('as markdown') and content ('written overview ... plus its complete concept roster'). It distinguishes itself from library_get_concept by framing usage around a whole school of analysis, and from library_list_families by being a follow-up detail fetch.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: after library_list_families, or when the user asks about a broad area such as 'SMC' or 'Wyckoff'. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative for single-concept queries, but the 'whole area' phrasing implies that boundary.

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