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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns both outgoing and incoming relations, delegates to get_relation_graph when the relation index is loaded, and is O(1) in that case. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of cost and internal behavior.

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 sentences, no filler. The core return behavior is front-loaded, followed by the usage condition and an explicit anti-duplication warning. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with one well-documented parameter, the description provides everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: what it returns, when to call it, and how it relates to get_relation_graph. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by specifying the relation categories returned.

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 schema fully covers the only parameter, objectName, including an example. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable because schema coverage is 100%; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource scope: ALL FK/DeleteAction/DataSource relations (outgoing) plus back-references (incoming). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_relation_graph and find_references by defining both direction and relation types.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool: 'Call BEFORE generating multi-object code to understand the full dependency graph.' It also warns the agent not to call both find_related_objects and get_relation_graph for the same object, making the usage boundary concrete.

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