get_domain_relationship

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination support and the return type (formatted string), but does not mention error conditions, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. While 'query' implies a read operation, this is not explicit.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a structured argument list and a returns line. Every line adds information and there is no redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized.

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 output schema exists, so return value explanation is not strictly necessary, but the description still provides it. For a 4-parameter read-only tool with no annotations, the description is mostly complete, though it lacks guidance on valid relationship types or error handling, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: domain, relationship, limit with an explicit range (1-40), and cursor as a continuation token. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare type definitions in the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Query' with the resource 'a specific relationship type for a domain' and adds 'with pagination support,' clearly defining scope. It distinguishes from sibling report tools (e.g., get_domain_report) by focusing on relationships rather than full reports, and from other relationship tools by the domain scope.

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 states the tool's function and mentions pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_domain_report or the other relationship tools (get_url_relationship, get_file_relationship, get_ip_relationship). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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