get_foreign_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires specific privileges, or has side effects. The tool name and description imply a non-destructive query, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the purpose, then details each parameter in a logical order, including the output format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and output structure comprehensively. It could mention permission requirements or indicate that it's a read-only operation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds essential meaning: explains that 'database' comes from list_databases, 'table' from list_objects and is auto-uppercased, and defines each direction value with its meaning. This is significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 for a table, specifying the database and table parameters and the direction options. It differentiates from sibling tools like describe_table and get_table_constraints by focusing specifically on FK relationships.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to get FK relationships) and explains how to obtain the database and table values from other tools (list_databases, list_objects). It also details the direction parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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