get_organization_relations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'current or historical' discloses that the tool can return relation state at different time perspectives. It does not discuss auth or pagination, but for a simple read tool with an output schema, the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately names the resource and the key temporal distinction, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter read operation and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key scope, entity types, and temporal modes. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on sibling tool selection, which is already captured in the usage dimension.

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 only describes the 'status' parameter, leaving 'id' undocumented. The description compensates by identifying the organization as the entity the id refers to, and by restating the current/historical semantics of status. This gives enough meaning for an agent to understand both parameters despite only 50% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('an organization's current or historical relations') and names the entity types involved ('other organizations and people in the KRS'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings such as get_organization (entity details) and get_person_relations (person-centric relations).

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 the tool should be used when retrieving an organization's relation data, and the 'current or historical' wording gives some context for choosing a status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_person_relations or get_organization, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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