kinship

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It discloses the output content (three-language terms plus DNA share), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about determinism, error behavior for invalid paths, or how the optional inputs combine. Adequate but thin against a low annotation bar.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the trilingual naming and ends with the DNA share. The parenthetical examples earn their place by showing the output format, though the description is dense and could be split for scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and read-only annotations cover safety. However, with zero required parameters the description never clarifies that 'path' is an alternative to the up/down pair for specifying the same relationship, which is exactly the decision an agent must make to call it 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?

The description contains zero parameter guidance—all five params (up, down, sex, half, path) are left to the schema, which only documents 60% of them. The 40% gap (sex enum values, the meaning of half) is unaddressed in either place, and the description's examples (троюродный брат, second cousin) illustrate output terms, not input syntax.

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 computation: naming what B is to A, in three languages, plus the expected DNA share. An agent can tell this is a kinship-term resolver distinct from siblings like dna_match or audit_tree. It stops short of 5 because 'What B is to A' is terse and the resource (relationship/kinship) is never named outright.

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?

There is no when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no named alternative (dna_match and check_match overlap conceptually but are never mentioned). Usage is only inferable from the genealogy context. Nothing tells the agent what input shape selects this tool versus the DNA-oriented siblings.

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