get_related_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and the relationship traversal is clear. However, it does not disclose behaviors such as whether traversal is only direct, whether result lists are paginated, or any error conditions. Minimal but not misleading.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the example adds immediate, practical clarity. Every word earns its place.

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 has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides purpose and an example but omits parameter definitions, return format, and any edge-case behavior. An agent might infer the mapping, but the description alone is not sufficiently complete for confident invocation.

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 must compensate. The example 'Contacts under an Account' gives an indirect clue that objectType is the source type and relatedObjectType is the target type, but none of the three parameters (objectType, recordId, relatedObjectType) are explicitly explained or mapped to the example.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('records linked to a specific entity'), and gives a concrete example ('Contacts under an Account'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_objects or query, which serve different purposes.

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 phrase 'Useful for traversing relationships' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like query for arbitrary filtering, so it falls short of full guidance.

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