Explain Table Relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that the tool does not invent relationships, implying it only reports existing evidence. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error behavior, or output format.

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 14-word sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint. No unnecessary 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?

Given the high parameter count (9), lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, return value nature, or provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'two OceanBase tables' broadly, leaving all 7 optional parameters (depth, schema, profile, etc.) completely unexplained. No added meaning beyond parameter names.

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 explains visible relationship evidence between two OceanBase tables, with the important qualifier 'without inventing missing relationships.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ob_find_related_tables or ob_describe_table.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ob_find_related_tables or ob_compare_tables. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for use.

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