relation_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavior: the validity interval semantics ([valid_from,valid_to)) and the availability of stale/deleted/inactive filters. However, it does not clarify default filtering behavior (e.g., whether stale records are excluded by default) or pagination/return format. It adds some value beyond annotations but lacks depth.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately adds the key validity interval detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and key behavior.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no schema descriptions), the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, default filter behavior, pagination, or the response format. The mention of validity interval is helpful but not sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly across all its options.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 13 parameters. It mentions 'scope, intervals, stale/deleted/inactive filters', which loosely maps to parameters like source_entity_id, at, include_stale, etc., but does not explain the meaning of parameters such as 'project', 'namespace', 'predicate', or how 'at' and 'history' work together. The description provides only a high-level overview, insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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's function: querying current facts or history, with filters for scope, intervals, and stale/deleted/inactive states. The verb 'Query' and the resource (facts/relations) are explicit, and it distinguishes from modifying siblings like relation_add/relation_update. However, the term 'facts' is somewhat vague without explicit mention of 'relations', though the tool name clarifies this.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like entity_search or memory_search. It mentions specific filter capabilities, but does not state exclusions or alternatives. The context of relation searching is implied by the name, but no clear 'use this for X, not Y' guidance is given.

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