related_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the types of relations returned, the output fields, and that it includes the web page href. It does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, but the read-only intent is strongly implied by 'use it to answer... before searching list by list.'

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 fairly long but each sentence contributes useful information: the relationship mappings, the output shape, and the intended usage. It is structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, though slightly verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing output fields (type, id, title, subtitle, status, date, href). It does not mention pagination, limits, or error behavior, but for a related-items lookup the provided details are largely sufficient.

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 schema already documents type, id, and companyId. The description repeats the type values but does not add much beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly states the tool returns everything connected to a single record, and it elaborates the exact relationship mappings for each supported type (client, invoice, declaration, dosar). This makes its purpose distinct from the many list and search sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: to answer 'what else do we have about X?' before searching list by list. This provides concrete guidance and differentiates it from more targeted list/get tools.

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