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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read-only operation. The description adds the key behavioral detail that it returns a relationship map based on foreign keys. It does not disclose more (e.g., output format or performance implications), but for a simple no-parameter read tool, this is sufficient given the strong annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and strong read-only annotations, the description completely covers what the tool does: it retrieves the foreign-key relationship map. It is not overly complex, and no additional context is needed to understand its basic function. The sibling tool list suggests other db tools, but the description stands alone adequately.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema to elaborate on. The baseline of 4 applies because with no parameters, the description has no additional burden. It appropriately focuses solely on the tool's action and result.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the relationship map showing how tables are connected via foreign keys.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('relationship map'), and the foreign key detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like scalix_db_schema or scalix_db_table. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies relationships, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools such as scalix_db_schema or scalix_db_table, nor does it describe prerequisites or typical use cases. Users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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