get_person_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it requires an access token, warns the tree is community-edited with common same-name conflations, and frames the output as 'a hint about where to look, not evidence.' It also describes the per-entry fields (contributor, timestamp, change, reason).

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then layers interpretation guidance and caveats. Every section is relevant, though the multi-paragraph framing is somewhat expansive for a single-parameter read tool.

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-shape burden and does so by describing each entry's contents. It also covers auth requirements and the epistemic caveat about the data, leaving no major gap for calling the tool correctly.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage that already documents the FamilySearch person id format ('K2ZP-VY1'). The description adds no syntax or value detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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: 'Read the change log of a tree profile,' and immediately enumerates the payload ('who edited it, when and why'). This clearly differentiates it from get_person, get_person_sources, and get_person_memories among the siblings.

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?

Explains the analytical purpose (judging how a profile was assembled, spotting recent unreasoned name/parent changes where conflations enter) and directs the agent onward: 'Follow it to an underlying record and cite that instead.' It frames when the tool is valuable but never names a sibling alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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