get_descendants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: living/private descendants are redacted to stubs by default, and the result is a nested tree rather than a flat list.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one behavioral caveat an agent must know. No filler or repetition.

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 usefully characterizes the return value as a nested children tree and discloses the redaction default, which are the key facts for this traversal tool. It stops short of covering failure modes (e.g., unknown person) or how the generations cap interacts with sparse data.

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 the schema already documents person, generations, and include_private fully. The description only echoes the generation cap ('up to N generations') and the default redaction behavior, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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 (walk) and resource (a person's descendants) plus the return shape (nested children tree), which is more than a restated name. It is inherently distinguishable from the get_ancestors sibling, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the downward-traversal counterpart to get_ancestors. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as get_family or get_relationship.

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