extract_entity_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the operation (extraction) and return types, which is adequate. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, resource usage, or behavioral constraints beyond the basic functionality.

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: two sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by an example and output summary. No extraneous 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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return type (entity pairs with strength and context). Parameters are clear. The tool is not overly complex (2 simple params), so the description is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (doc_id, min_confidence) are already described in the schema. The description adds context about the output but does not add new meaning to the input parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action ('extract co-occurrence relationships'), the resource ('entities in a document'), and the output ('entity pairs with relationship strength and context snippets'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extract_entities' or 'search_entity_pair' by focusing on co-occurrence 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 explains when to use this tool (to analyze how entities co-appear in a document). It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the clear purpose implies appropriate usage.

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