consult_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: results are per file, each fact is flagged for whether a source was attached, source text is included when present, results are untrusted, and probably-living people are withheld and counted. This is exactly the kind of return-behavior and privacy disclosure that helps an agent use the tool correctly.

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 purpose and then layers return details, source-flagging behavior, usage warning, and privacy handling in a compact block. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or waste.

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?

For a search/consult tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough return-shape information, trust-level guidance, source-flagging semantics, and privacy behavior. Combined with annotations that cover safety, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add syntax, matching behavior, or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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: consult/search the legacy GEDCOM reference layer for hints. It clearly frames the tool as returning untrusted, non-authoritative hints rather than definitive records, which distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools. An agent can understand the tool's unique role without opening the 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?

It gives explicit usage context: use hints to decide what real record to hunt for, then create the fact in the tree citing that record. It also gives a clear prohibition: do not copy a hint in as a sourced fact. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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