db_table_foreign_keys

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It merely states the action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or output structure. The tool is a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated, and the return format (e.g., list of foreign key details) is omitted.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action. Every word is meaningful; there is no redundancy or fluff. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, which may reduce clarity for complex use cases.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., column names, referenced tables). It does not, leaving the agent unaware of the information returned. The sibling tools provide similar schema inspection but without output context, so the shortfall is moderate.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema (connection_id, database, table). The description adds no additional semantics, such as specifying that the table parameter should be fully qualified or that foreign keys reference limited tables. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair: 'Get foreign key relationships for a table'. It clearly identifies the action and object, distinguishing it from other database tools like listing columns or indexes. However, it lacks differentiation among sibling tools such as db_table_columns or db_table_describe, which could also be used for schema exploration.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as an active connection, nor does it explain whether it retrieves inbound, outbound, or both foreign key relationships. There are no examples or exclusions.

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