get_ancestry

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld; the description adds substantial context beyond that: the Ahnentafel numbering scheme, the reliability caveat that deep pedigree lines are frequently copied, the community-edited nature of the shared tree with common conflations, and the explicit auth requirement. This is rich behavioral disclosure an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then progressively adds the numbering key, reliability warning, and auth note. Each paragraph earns its place, though the pedigree-suspicion paragraph is slightly expository for a tool definition.

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?

With no output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it explains the flat list with Ahnentafel gaps, the reliability of results, and the access-token requirement. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning by explaining the Ahnentafel numbering (person=1, father/mother=2/3, grandparents=4-7), which makes the 'generations' parameter and the flat-list output interpretable. It stops short of discussing the 1-8 bound rationale.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: walking a person's pedigree back through generations. The Ahnentafel explanation makes the output shape concrete. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (get_descendancy), though 'back' implies direction, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clarifies what the result is for ('a hint about where to look, not evidence' and to cite an underlying record instead), which implies usage context. However it never states when to prefer this over get_descendancy, get_person_relatives, or get_person, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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