get_descendants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the result is a recursive tree grouped 'children per marriage' and bounded by a generation limit.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource, structure and limit all front-loaded. Nothing extraneous; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still previews the tree shape and generation bound. Slightly under-specified only on error/edge behavior (e.g., missing id, nonexistent file).

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 67% (id and file documented; generations has only default/min/max bounds with no description). The description's 'up to N generations' supplies the meaning of the undocumented generations parameter, so it partially compensates but doesn't fully close the gap.

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+resource ('Descendant tree ... for an individual') plus the recursive structure and generation cap, clearly contrasting with the get_ancestors sibling by naming descendants rather than ancestors. It never explicitly names the alternative, but an agent can distinguish the two from the resource noun alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: it applies 'for an individual,' which suggests the id-based lookup context. No when-to-use vs get_ancestors, no exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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