get_descendancy

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: living descendants are withheld and returned as restricted, the tree is community-edited with common same-name conflations, results are a hint not evidence, and an access token is required.

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?

Four short paragraphs, each front-loaded with its point: what it does, why to use it, what comes back withheld, and the data-quality caveat. No sentence is filler.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so, explaining that restricted living descendants are marked and that results are probabilistic hints. Annotations cover the safety profile, and auth requirements are stated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both person_id and generations are already documented in the schema, including the 1-4 range and the fan-out rationale. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Walk a tree person's descendants forward through the generations') with a clear directional scope that separates it from the sibling get_ancestry. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('the sideways search' when a person's own record cannot be found) and frames the output as a hint rather than evidence. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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