findRelationships

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: where applies to relationship edges while source/target scope endpoint records, and the no-select/groupBy limitation. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination semantics, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 operation is front-loaded ('Discover and traverse relationships between records') before the two scenarios, and each clause carries actionable content rather than filler. It is dense and slightly long but no sentence is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, the description is not obligated to explain return values, and the schema covers all six parameters. What remains — when to use this versus findRecords, how to chain it for multi-hop traversal, and the select/groupBy exclusion — is precisely what the structured fields cannot express, and it is all present.

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 description coverage is 100% with defaults on skip/limit, so the structured fields already carry most semantics. The description still adds value by disambiguating the edge-level 'where' from the endpoint-level source.where/target.where and by showing how source.where is used with a sample record ID in practice, which the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Discover and traverse relationships between records') and immediately frames the two modes of operation. It also names the sibling it is not (findRecords) so an agent can separate this from the analytics/query tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly enumerates two scenarios (multi-hop path discovery and edge filtering), gives the procedure for the first (fetch a sample ID, filter source.where/target.where, repeat, then build a nested findRecords clause), and states a negative constraint: no select/groupBy, use findRecords for metrics. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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