get_url_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 discloses that the operation is a read-only query ('Query'), supports pagination via limit/cursor, and returns formatted data. However, it does not describe error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the URL must be exact. While the 'Query' verb implies non-destructive behavior, the description could be richer for an unannotated tool.

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 efficiently structured as a docstring with a one-sentence summary followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, every sentence provides necessary information, and there is no fluff or repetition. The formatting is clean and easy to parse.

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 description covers the main parameters and return type, and an output schema exists so the return format is not the description's responsibility. However, it omits crucial contextual details such as valid relationship types (e.g., which ones are supported), URL format expectations, and error handling. Given there are no annotations and relatively complex behavior (pagination), the description is only partially complete for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides one-line descriptions for each parameter, and notably adds useful constraints for 'limit' (maximum 1-40) and 'cursor' (continuation cursor). For 'url' and 'relationship,' the descriptions ('The URL to get relationships for' and 'Type of relationship to query') are close to restating the parameter names, and no allowed values or format details are given. This partial enrichment warrants a mid-score.

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 opens with 'Query a specific relationship type for a URL with pagination support,' which clearly identifies the action (query), the resource (URL), and the specific aspect (relationship type). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_url_report (report vs relationship) and other relationship tools (file/ip/domain) by explicitly stating 'for a URL.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used specifically for relationships (not reports) or that other relationship tools cover different resource types. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so an agent is left to infer from the tool name alone.

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