get_foreign_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action ('Get foreign key relationships') without noting whether it is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or how it handles missing tables or invalid inputs. No side effects or return details are mentioned.

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 with no fluff, but it lacks any structural detail or additional context. It is appropriately short for a simple read tool, yet it omits any explanation of the returned data or usage nuances, making it feel under-specified rather than elegantly minimal.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should be more informative. It does not explain return format, behavior on empty results, or how the server/database parameters interact. For a database tool with several optional parameters and no explicit safety notes, this is incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and the parameter descriptions are clear (e.g., 'Table name', 'Schema name (default: dbo)'). The tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('foreign key relationships for a table'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_constraints or get_indexes, so an agent might not know which is best without deeper inspection.

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 (e.g., get_constraints for broader constraint information). No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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