get_entity_relationships

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool retrieves, omitting details on caching (though refresh parameter hints at it), permissions, side effects, or rate limits. This is insufficient for understanding runtime behavior.

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 a single sentence with a hyphen separating the source from examples. It is concise and front-loaded, but the structure could be improved with bullet points or clearer separation of elements. No word is wasted.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain the response structure beyond vague examples. It lacks details on how to specify entity_id (e.g., Wikidata Q identifier), pagination, or error cases. For a tool querying an external API, this is 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 100%, so the bar is lower. The description does not add meaning beyond the field names and brief parameter descriptions. For example, 'source' and 'entity_id' are not elaborated, and no format expectations are given. Baseline score 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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'entity relationships', and the data source 'Wikidata SPARQL'. It also lists example relationship types (corporate connections, political positions, associates), making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings like get_entity or get_entity_analytics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools (e.g., get_entity, search_entities), the description fails to specify context or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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