get_foreign_keys

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that table names are automatically uppercased, defines direction semantics, and describes the optional filtering by relatedTable. However, it does not mention potential errors or limitations like pagination.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear structure including a return signature and bullet-like explanations. No unnecessary words.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: direction semantics, auto-uppercase, and filtering. It mentions a sibling tool for context. Minor omissions like error handling do not significantly detract.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the direction parameter values and how relatedTable filtering works based on direction, aiding correct usage.

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 it returns foreign key relationships involving a table, specifies the return format, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool inspect_table by noting that inspect_table is preferred for getting FKs alongside other info.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use an alternative (inspect_table) and explains the meaning of direction values, providing clear guidance on how to use the tool effectively.

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