Get a list of relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that the result is paginated and that each relation includes contacts, tags, and subtypes—information not present in the annotations. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 short with two substantive sentences, though the first sentence largely repeats the tool title and the second provides the real detail. There is minor redundancy but no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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?

For a simple paginated list operation with fully documented parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks an explicit statement about response format or pagination limits, but the schema's defaults and the description's mention of included fields are sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the full semantic load. The description itself adds no extra parameter detail beyond what is already in the schema, matching the baseline score for high coverage.

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?

Clearly states the operation: 'Get a paginated list of all relations' with the specific verb 'get' and resource 'relations'. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_relation by indicating it returns all relations, not a single one, and adds detail about included contacts, tags, and subtypes.

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 makes the main use case clear: retrieving all relations in a paginated list. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., get_relation for a single relation), leaving the comparison to inference rather than explicit guidance.

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