Get Relationship Strengths

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful context: returns array with strength scores (0.0-1.0), explains the strength scale, and notes potential data sparsity. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with sections (version note, use case, parameters, returns, limitations, example). Front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence contributes, no fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return type and strength interpretation. All limitations are listed. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is complete and actionable.

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%, but description adds substantial value: explains required/optional status, default and max for page_size, and details the return value with strength ranges. Helps agent understand parameter impact.

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 it discovers team connections to an external contact for warm introductions, with a specific use case example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like affinity_search_persons by focusing on relationship strengths.

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?

It explicitly states when to use (warm introductions), limitations (cannot query by organization, one external person at a time), and version note (V1 not V2). Provides clear guidance on alternative actions.

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