get_place_jurisdictions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it says the chain is returned innermost first, each level carries id/type/span, and that the tool works without credentials.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation and is compact for the amount of useful detail it provides. The example and credential note earn their place, though the line breaks make it slightly less tight than possible.

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 must explain what comes back, and it does: an ordered chain, innermost first, with id, type, and span at each level. It also notes credential-free operation. Remaining gaps—error behavior or exact span semantics—are minor for an agent that mainly needs to know what the call returns.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented as a FamilySearch place description id. The description adds an illustrative example of what the walk produces but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Walk a place's containment chain upward to the country.' The example 'Kaskaskia' → 'Kaskaskia, Randolph, Illinois, United States' makes the operation concrete and distinguishes it from downward-looking siblings such as get_place_children.

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?

The description implies when the tool is useful—when you need the full jurisdiction chain above a place—but does not explicitly name alternatives like get_place or get_place_children, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage is inferable but not fully guided.

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