explore_genealogy

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the output format (generation numbers, relationship types, Mermaid diagram) and the data scope (1,100+ biblical persons). However, it does not mention limitations like potential missing persons or error handling, which would enhance 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 structured with clear sections: a bold directive, a summary, a usage table, and output details. It is not overly verbose; each part serves a purpose. However, the series of examples could be condensed slightly without losing clarity, making it a strong but not perfect score.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage guidance, and output format. It lacks mention of what happens when a person is not found or performance expectations, but for a genealogy tool with clear annotations and sibling differentiation, it is sufficiently complete.

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, meaning all parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add new semantic details beyond the schema, but it does provide example values ('David', 'Abraham', 'Jesus') that align with the person parameter. While no extra parameter info is needed, the description meets the baseline expectation.

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 the tool's function: it traverses multi-generational family trees for genealogical queries. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool lookup_name by explicitly stating that explore_genealogy is for lineage across generations, while lookup_name handles immediate family. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool lookup_name, with a detailed 'WHEN TO USE' section that includes concrete examples. It also instructs the agent to always use this tool for lineage-related questions, leaving no ambiguity about context.

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