get_schema_relationships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only generation task, but does not state permission needs, cost on large schemas, or what 'complete' means. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe the return shape, which keeps this from scoring lower.

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 efficient sentence with the key artifact front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

The output schema covers what is returned, so the description does not need to. However, for a diagram-generation tool with an optional, undocumented schema parameter and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing about defaults and scope limits.

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% and the sole parameter has a default of empty string. The description only echoes that a schema is involved and never explains the critical behavior of omitting the parameter (which schema is used?). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Generates') and a specific artifact ('complete Entity-Relationship diagram') scoped to 'tables in a schema'. This is clearly distinct from siblings like describe_table (single table) and get_table_connections, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the latter.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this is a schema-wide relationship overview, and it gets no help deciding between this and the overlapping get_table_connections sibling.

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