Get Organisation Relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states what is returned ('relationship types, target organisations, and status'), which is transparent about the data output. Although it does not mention authentication or rate limits, the read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and the focus on return content suffices for a simple read operation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by examples and return structure. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler 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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the purpose, provides examples, and outlines the return fields. It could slightly expand on the full set of relationship types available, but it is adequately complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the ods_code parameter including examples. The tool description adds value by explaining the context of the parameter within relationships but does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets relationships for a specific NHS organisation, with concrete examples (ICB commissions GP practice, region for trust). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like organisations_get or organisations_search, which serve different purposes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for a specific NHS organisation when you need its relationships. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the examples and the 'specific NHS organisation' wording make the use case evident.

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