get_relationship

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: the textual response form, the generation-distance output, and the meaning of a negative result bounded by search depth. It does not say what happens on an unknown handle or how depth defaulting behaves, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by the return shape and the negative-case caveat. No filler and nothing that repeats structured fields verbatim.

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 correctly takes on the return semantics (relationship wording plus generation distance to the common ancestor) and the false case. It is nearly complete; only error behavior for invalid handles and the effect of an omitted depth are unstated.

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%, including a good description of `all_paths` and the person handle/gramps_id formats, so the schema carries the burden. The description only indirectly gestures at the `depth` parameter via the search-depth note and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

State a specific verb and resource: computing the relationship between two named people. It is clearly distinct in substance from single-person readers like get_ancestors, get_descendants and get_family, but it never names a sibling or otherwise explicitly delineates itself from them.

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 rather than stated. The description usefully explains that a false `related` result is itself informative when a relationship was expected, which guides interpretation, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g. get_ancestors for one-sided lineage) and no indication of how `depth` should be chosen.

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