Get Relationship

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the return payload (both contact IDs, note, metadata), which is helpful. However, it does not describe error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects; for a read-only 'get' tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

Two succinct sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a brief return summary. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return contents. However, it omits information on error responses and does not explain how the response is structured beyond vague 'metadata'. Adequate but not deeply 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?

The sole parameter relationship_id is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), and the description does not add any additional meaning, context, or format expectations beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('specific relationship'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_relationships_attached_to_contact (list) or edit_relationship. It also previews the response contents, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single relationship's details but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as get_relationships_attached_to_contact for listing multiple relationships. Lacks exclusion criteria or a comparison to sibling tools.

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