get_contact_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns 'a JSON string with all related items,' which is useful, but it does not describe edge cases, empty results, authorization needs, or whether the response is fully unfiltered. For a read-like 'get' tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a structured Args/Returns section. The 'convenience method' sentence adds a mild usage hint without being overly verbose, so nearly every part earns its place.

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 single-required-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description covers the core purpose and return format well. The main missing context is clearer guidance about when to use this versus sibling relationship tools, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can likely invoke it correctly.

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 description only repeats 'contact_id: The contact ID,' which adds little beyond the schema's property name and integer type. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining where the ID comes from, what kind of contact ID is expected, or providing an example, but it does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all items related to a specific contact'), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_configuration_relationships and get_flexible_asset_relationships by explicitly targeting contact relationships.

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 phrase 'convenience method for a common use case' implies when this might be used, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as list_related_items or the other relationship tools. There are no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving usage to be inferred.

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