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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that results include three categories of links, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not mention pagination, permissions, or error behavior, but with annotations covering safety and an output schema available, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the three result categories with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 annotations covering safety semantics, a fully described single parameter, and an output schema explaining return values, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly. A minor gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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%, so the single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including tree-qualified format and omission rules. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the specific resource precisely: outgoing links, backlinks, and external URLs for a concept. It is not a generic 'get links' restatement. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_concept or search_concepts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_concept (which might return a concept with links) or search_concepts. The implied usage is to retrieve links for a known concept ID, but no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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