relate

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing exactly what the tool does (detect shared accessions, cross-identifiers, explicit links, version lineage) and what it does not do (read file columns, fetch files, execute join/merge/conversion). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 complexity of detecting relationships between resources, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, input constraints, types of relationships detected, what is not done, and behavior on failures. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed.

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 100%. The description adds context that the ids are 'source-prefixed' and explains the purpose ('resource ids to relate'). It also reiterates the min and max items, adding value beyond the schema.

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 it returns 'metadata-level join/harmonization HINTS' for given resource ids, specifying the types of relationships detected (shared accessions, cross-identifiers, explicit links, version lineage) and what it does not do. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_sources, fetch, and operate.

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 specifies the input range (2-10 ids) and advises to resolve ids first if only a search result is available. It also clarifies that per-id failures are reported and not fatal. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear.

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