list_people_relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only names the operation and endpoint but does not indicate pagination behavior, default sorting, response shape, read-only safety, or whether the operation is limited by any default scope. This is a thin description for a list endpoint.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with the endpoint appended in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool has six parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only provides a two-line purpose statement. Critical context is missing: what a 'relationship' is in Follow Up Boss, whether results are paginated, and what the return structure looks like. The agent cannot confidently predict the tool's behavior from this definition.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema, including the extraQuery object. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither compensates nor harms beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('relationships between people'), and the system ('Follow Up Boss'), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_people_relationship, leaving some ambiguity about list vs. single-item 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_people_relationship, create_people_relationship, or update_people_relationship. It does not mention whether this should be used for bulk retrieval, filtering by person, or any recommended scenarios.

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