parent_hypothesis

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the output is always a hypothesis, must be saved as an open lead/'probably', and never written as a tree link, plus the warning about namesakes from other villages. It does not discuss limits, determinism, or what happens when candidates is empty.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by the ranking factors, the caveat, and the settling record. The Петрович → Пётр / Ильич → Илья examples are short and directly illustrate the transformation, so every clause earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the epistemic status, ranking logic and the null-candidates fallback (documented in the schema). For a nested-object analytical tool this is close to complete, though it omits when to prefer it over sibling analysis tools.

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?

With 67% schema coverage and nested objects, the description still adds meaning: it explains that ranking runs on name, surname, village and age, and that godparents, sureties and the child's own children feed the evidence (a grandson named after him). That connects the narrative to the child/candidates fields rather than restating them.

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 transformation and output: deriving a father's given name from a patronymic and returning ranked candidates with arguments for and against, a namesake warning, and a settling record. That is far more specific than a tautology and lets an agent understand the tool's output shape. It never names or contrasts a sibling tool (e.g. check_match or kinship), so it falls short of the top band.

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 a clear usage rule for the result: "Always a hypothesis — save it as an open lead or 'probably', never as a link in the tree." That is strong guidance about how to treat the output. It does not, however, say when to reach for this tool versus the sibling analysis tools, so no alternatives are named.

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