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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds nothing beyond the basic action: no return-format, pagination, or volume context for what could be a large relation dump.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, correctly sized for a simple list operation. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 annotations covering safety this is borderline adequate, but there is no output schema and the description never hints at what is returned (relation objects, counts, format). Given the dense set of relation-related siblings, a phrase distinguishing workspace-wide from entity-scoped results would make it complete.

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 100% for the single optional workspace_id parameter, and the schema itself explains the UUID-or-name format and the omit-if-fixed-workspace rule. The description adds no parameter meaning, 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?

States a clear verb (Obtiene) and resource (relaciones entre entidades del workspace), scoping to the workspace level. However, it never names the closely-related sibling get_entity_relations, so an agent must infer the workspace-wide vs. entity-scoped distinction on its own.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to an alternative, despite a crowded sibling set containing get_entity_relations, get_document_entities and add/delete_entity_relation. The only contextual hint ('Omitir si el token ya tiene workspace fijo') lives in the schema, not the description.

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