get_place_jurisdictions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true) and open-world scope, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the return ordering ('innermost first'), the per-level fields (id, type, span of existence), and the auth requirement ('Works without credentials'). It stops short of failure behavior for an invalid or top-level place_id.

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 the concrete example, then the return shape, then the auth note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant padding.

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 does the work of describing the return structure (ordered chain of levels with id/type/span), which is exactly what's needed. Minor gap: it doesn't state edge-case behavior (e.g., a place that is itself a country, or an unknown place_id).

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents place_id as the 'FamilySearch place description id to walk upward from.' The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint 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 and resource ('walk a place's containment chain upward to the country') and immediately grounds it with a concrete example ('Kaskaskia' → 'Kaskaskia, Randolph, Illinois, United States'). The explicit 'upward' direction contrasts cleanly with the sibling get_place_children, which walks the other way, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Usage is implied by the mechanism ('walk upward to the country') but the description never says when to prefer this over get_place, get_place_children, or search_places_at_date, nor when it is not appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated beyond the credential note.

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