associations_get_relations_by_record_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema—it implies a retrieval operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or any limitations. Since annotations carry the safety burden, the description's lack of additional detail is acceptable but not exemplary; a 3 reflects that it adds limited value beyond annotations.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structured exposition. It front-loads the key action and resource, but provides no additional structure like bullet points or clear parameter explanations. It is appropriately short but at the expense of necessary detail.

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, the description should explain what the tool returns and any relevant context. It does not describe the response structure, pagination, or the nature of 'relations'. Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and is a read operation, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent to call it correctly without additional inference.

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 only 40%: only locationId and associationIds have descriptions in the schema, while skip, limit, and recordId are undocumented. The description mentions 'record Id' but does not explain the meaning or usage of skip, limit, or associationIds. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents uncertain about required and optional 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 states a clear action (Get) and resource (relations) with a scope qualifier (by record Id). This distinguishes it from sibling association tools like associations_get_association_by_id which fetch a single association, and associations_get_association_by_object_keys which uses object keys rather than a record ID. The verb and resource are specific, though the term 'relations' could be more explicit about what it represents.

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. The sibling list includes several association-related tools, but the description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or routing logic. An agent would have to infer from the name alone that this retrieves relations when you have a record ID.

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