get_url_relationship

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination support and specificity of relationship type, which are valuable. However, it omits response structure, error behavior, or authentication requirements. It also doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only operation (though the name implies it), so transparency is partial.

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?

Three sentences: the first states the core action clearly, the second gives examples of relationship types, and the third adds usage context. The last sentence is slightly redundant but concise overall; no excessive filler.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 4 parameters and an enum, but the description omits any mention of return format (since there is no output schema). It covers the main purpose and pagination, but does not explain how to handle multiple pages or what the response contains, leaving completeness incomplete.

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 coverage is 50% (url and relationship have descriptions; limit and cursor do not). The description adds 'pagination support' to give meaning to limit/cursor and lists examples of relationship types. It does not fully describe cursor semantics, so it adds some but not complete value.

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 'Query a specific relationship type for a URL' with a list of example relationship types. This clearly identifies the resource and operation, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_url_report (which returns a report) and get_file_relationship/get_ip_relationship (which target different entities).

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?

It states 'Useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types,' which gives a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks a strong exclusion but is above implied usage.

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