Get Relationship

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one useful addition is directional framing (relative_id is described from person_id's perspective), but it says nothing about behavior when the two people are unrelated or in different branches.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and embedding a concrete example instead of abstract prose. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

All three required parameters are documented, an output schema exists so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a pure read/compute tool of this size, nothing an agent needs in order to call it is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description earns more by establishing directionality: person_id is the reference point and relative_id is the person being named relative to it. This is real added meaning, since the schema gives both parameters identical, interchangeable descriptions.

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 ('Name') and resource (kinship relation between two people), and the example 'first cousin once removed' makes the output unambiguous. It fails to distinguish itself from related siblings like get_ancestors or get_descendants, which also navigate kinship.

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 by the operation itself; the description never says when to prefer this over get_ancestors/get_descendants or get_person, nor what conditions make it appropriate. There are no alternatives or exclusions named.

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