get_stale_relationships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance—only ordinary interactions count—but does not explain how staleness is determined, how threshold_days affects results, or whether people with no recorded interactions are included. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every clause earns its place: the qualifier 'ordinary interactions only' conveys scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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 readOnlyHint, output schema, and all-optional parameters, an agent can safely invoke the tool with defaults based on the description alone. However, the description does not clarify category semantics or how threshold_days maps to 'recently,' leaving some uncertainty for customized calls. It is adequate but not 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 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention limit, category, or threshold_days. 'Recently' loosely implies threshold_days, but category remains undefined. The tool description adds almost no value beyond the schema's property titles and defaults.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return people you have not interacted with recently.' It also adds a meaningful qualifier, 'using ordinary interactions only,' which narrows the behavior. This distinguishes it from broad search or relationship-graph tools without being a tautology.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the goal is to find stale relationships. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many sibling tools. 'Ordinary interactions only' hints at a boundary, but does not state when another tool should be selected instead.

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