relations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the core behavior (both directions of foreign keys) but does not mention read-only nature, potential errors, or any limitations. It adds some behavioral context 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?

A single, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and immediately explains the bidirectional nature. Efficient and well-structured.

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 needn't detail return values. It covers the essential behavior and scope. Minor gaps exist: no mention of read-only semantics or profile behavior, but for a simple relational tool this is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'table' parameter (one table) but says nothing about the optional 'profile' parameter. This partial coverage leaves room for confusion about how profile affects results.

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's function: it retrieves foreign keys of a table, in both directions (referenced and referencing). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'describe' or 'overview' which likely provide broader table metadata.

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 exploring foreign key relationships but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks clear routing guidance.

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