get_person_relatives

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses that the tree is community-edited, that conflations are common, that results are a hint rather than evidence, and that an access token is required. This is exactly the reliability and auth context an agent needs before trusting the output.

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?

It is front-loaded with the function and then the cautions, and each paragraph earns its place. The conflation-detection narrative is slightly longer than strictly necessary but is substantive rather than 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 burden and does so by enumerating the relation categories returned. Combined with the reliability caveat and auth requirement, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already supplies the id format and an example. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for a fully documented schema is correct.

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 names a specific verb and resource: reads a tree person's parents, spouses, children and siblings. The scope ('whole immediate family') distinguishes it from siblings like get_ancestry and get_descendancy, which walk full lines rather than the immediate circle.

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?

It gives clear context for use ('what you need to judge whether a profile is the person you are looking for') and explains what a mismatched family implies. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (get_ancestry, get_descendancy, compare_person) or the conditions that would select them.

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