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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'get' signals read-only, but the description does not state auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or side effects. It also doesn't specify whether the result is a list or how confidence relates to filtering, leaving behavioral expectations vague.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource, with examples and return fields. There is no filler or redundancy, and the ellipsis keeps it compact while indicating additional relation types.

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 and no annotations, the description should specify what a caller receives and any constraints. It provides the return payload's two key attributes (confidence and target names), but it omits the list shape, pagination logic implied by limit, and the meaning of relation types. For a straightforward read tool this is adequate, but with three parameters and no schema descriptions it leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'confidence,' which hints at the meaning of min_confidence, and 'target names' hints at output, but slug and limit are not explained beyond their names. The description adds only marginal semantic value for the parameters.

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 uses a precise verb ('get') and a specific resource ('an entity's relations'), enumerates relation types (alternatives, built-on, integrations) and states two return fields (confidence, target names). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_entity, which returns the entity itself, and list_entities, which returns a collection of entities.

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?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving relation data for a single entity, but it never states when to prefer it over compare_entities or search_entities, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The phrase 'entity's relations' provides some contextual guidance, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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