relate

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint=true by disclosing that output is hints only, that no file columns are read or files fetched, that each hint cites the shared value as evidence, and that per-id resolve failures are reported rather than fatal. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to set expectations for a non-authoritative, non-mutating analysis call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return type, then constraints and failure behavior in descending priority. Dense but almost every clause carries distinct information; the enumeration of detection categories is slightly listy but justified by the tool's discovery purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the description still covers scope boundaries, prerequisites, evidence semantics, and partial-failure behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the description restates the same facts (2-10 ids, source-prefixed) without adding syntax or format guidance beyond the schema. With a single fully documented parameter, this is the expected baseline rather than added 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?

Names a specific verb (relate) and resource (2-10 resource ids) and states precisely what is returned: metadata-level join/harmonization hints, with enumerated detection categories (shared accessions, cross-identifiers, explicit links, version lineage). It is clearly distinguishable from resolve/search/fetch because it explicitly says it does not read columns, fetch files, or execute joins.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Resolve ids first if you only have a search result') and a clear when-not-to-use boundary (it does not execute joins/merges, so it is not a substitute for an operate-style action). It does not, however, name the sibling tool an agent should reach for when it actually wants to execute a join, leaving that routing implicit.

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