get_ip_relationship

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination support and lists relationship types, but does not describe the response format, error behavior, or explicitly confirm a read-only nature. The verb 'Query' implies a read operation but lacks explicit safety cues.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It includes useful relationship type examples and a use case without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values and pagination details. It covers purpose and use case well but omits the response structure and cursor mechanics, making it adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.

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 covers ip and relationship with descriptions, but limit and cursor have no descriptions. The description mentions pagination support, which hints at the purpose of limit and cursor, but does not explain cursor usage or response token mechanics, so it only partially compensates for the schema's missing semantics.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'a specific relationship type for an IP address', which distinguishes it from sibling relationship tools for other entities. It also lists example relationship types, making the tool's scope immediately understandable.

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?

'Useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as referring to get_ip_report for a broader overview.

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