get_ip_relationship

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support and a return type, which adds some context, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or error handling. The query verb implies non-mutating, but it 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 tightly written: one opening sentence, a clean Args list, and a Returns line. No redundant or filler content; every line contributes to understanding.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no detailed output schema, the description provides basic parameter and return information but lacks completeness. The return type ('Formatted relationship data') is vague, and valid relationship types or input constraints are not documented, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

The description provides direct explanations for all parameters (ip, relationship, limit, cursor) beyond the schema, including the limit range (1-40) and cursor purpose. Schema coverage is 0%, so this fully compensates and adds meaningful semantics.

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 'Query' with resource 'IP address' and clearly specifies 'relationship type', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ip_report and other relationship tools. The name itself aligns with the purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing relationship data for an IP) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on when to choose this over get_ip_report or other relationship tools, leaving usage context implied.

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