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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful content on what is returned (relationships plus the role on each side) and maps to the underlying GET endpoint, but says nothing about pagination limits, permissions, or result ordering beyond what the schema carries.

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?

One sentence stating the resource contents followed by the endpoint mapping – no filler, and the substantive information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what comes back (relationships with roles on both sides). It could mention paging behavior or that results are scoped to one constituent, but the schema covers those 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 coverage is 100% – skip, take, last_modified, and constituent_id are all documented in the schema, including the note that constituent_id is the API Id rather than the CRM AccountNumber. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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 the resource precisely ('relationships between this constituent and others') and gives illustrative relationship types (spouse, employer, board member), so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_constituent or list_constituents. It never states the verb 'list' itself, relying on the title and name to supply that, which slightly weakens standalone clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_constituent or get_constituent_timeline, and no prerequisites or scoping advice. Usage is only implied by the resource noun.

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