org_relationships_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Get details' implies a read operation, which is appropriate. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the result includes all fields or only a subset.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It explains what the tool does without needing to detail return values (as per rules). However, it could benefit from mentioning what kind of details are returned (e.g., relationship type, dates) to be more helpful.

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 already describes the single parameter 'id' with full coverage. The description adds no further meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (get) and resource (organization relationship) with a specific qualifier (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like org_relationships_get_all, org_relationships_create, etc., as it targets a single relationship by identifier.

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 usage when a specific ID is known, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like org_relationships_get_all (for listing) or org_relationships_* mutation tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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