gorelo_list_document_related_items

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's remaining burden is return behavior — which it does not address. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, result limits, or how heterogeneous related item types are presented, adding no context beyond the annotation and the name.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of information captured in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place a caller could learn what a 'related item' looks like or whether results are paged — and it says nothing. For a list/inspection tool this leaves an agent guessing at the response shape before calling.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents documentId. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier's format (UUID vs slug) or source, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (records related to a document), so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of saying what kinds of records ('related items' is opaque — tickets? assets? contacts?), but it is clearly distinguishable from sibling gorelo_create_document_related_item and gorelo_get_document.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus gorelo_get_document, gorelo_list_documents, or gorelo_list_document_versions, and no statement of prerequisites (does the document need to exist, is this paginated). Usage can only be inferred from the name.

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