list_foreign_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read, and the added warning about untrusted database content and prompt injection is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering for schemas with many relationships.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and no filler. The security sentence is generic but relevant for a tool returning database-sourced text.

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 simple read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters and no nested structures, the description covers enough to invoke correctly. The missing piece is any hint about result shape or volume, which matters more here since no output schema exists.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both optional parameters including the 'dbo' default, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. 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?

Names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('foreign key relationships') and scopes it to a schema, which is distinct from sibling tools like list_tables or describe_table. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from describe_table, which may also surface key metadata.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope phrase 'in a schema' and the optional database parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as describe_table.

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