get_descendants

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: the return value is a nested children tree, and living/private descendants are silently redacted to stubs by default. That redaction default is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs before summarizing output.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the privacy caveat follows immediately where it matters.

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 describes the returned structure (nested children tree with redacted stubs) and the privacy default, which is enough for correct invocation. It does not mention depth limits or what happens for a nonexistent root person, but those are covered by the schema's min/max constraints.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by framing 'generations' as a downward walk depth and by explaining the practical consequence of include_private (redacted stubs vs. full records), which the schema states only as 'show ... in full'.

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 result shape ('a nested children tree'). The distinction from the sibling get_ancestors is carried by the word 'descendants' rather than an explicit contrast, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 scope statement ('up to N generations') and the privacy note, but the description never says when to reach for this versus get_person, get_family, or get_ancestors, nor does it name an alternative. The only quasi-guidance ('unless include_private is set') duplicates what the schema already states.

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