get_person_relatives

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing that the shared tree is community-edited, that conflations of same-named people are common, that the result is a hint rather than evidence, and that an access token is required. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before treating the output as authoritative.

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 operation, then supporting context. Multi-paragraph, but each paragraph earns its place (scope, purpose, data-quality caveat, auth). Slightly longer than strictly necessary for a one-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 suitably names what is returned and frames it as a hint not evidence, plus the auth requirement. It is nearly complete; only the concrete shape/fields of the response are left implicit.

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 exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage, including an example ID format). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Read') and an exact resource scope: parents, spouses, children, siblings. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling extended-lineage tools like get_ancestry and get_descendancy, which pull wider trees.

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 context of use well: one call for the whole immediate family, used to judge whether a profile is the intended person, with concrete mismatch signals. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for extended family, so it stops short of a true when/when-not routing statement.

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