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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates that the tool returns a formatted link string and does not imply persistent side effects. It also transparently notes the fallback behavior of using the page title if display_text is omitted, which implies a possible lookup operation. This is adequate for a utility-like tool, though it could explicitly state that no records are modified.

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 somewhat longer than necessary but every section serves a purpose: it states the purpose, explains the return format, gives an example, covers parameter fallback, and shows integration with another tool. It is front-loaded with the main objective and well-structured, though a shorter version could have been tighter.

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 formatting tool, this is remarkably complete. It includes the return format, an example, parameter semantics, and a usage pattern in text blocks. It touches on fallback behavior and the rationale for using this tool (link validity). No critical information for an agent to call it correctly is missing, even without an output schema—the example return shape covers that.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by showing a concrete example (page_id and display_text), explaining the fallback when display_text is missing, and illustrating how the return value is used in a block update. This enriches parameter meaning without redundancy.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a properly formatted page link for use in markdown content.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_page (which creates a page) and find_linkable_pages (which finds pages) by focusing on link formatting. The example and explicit return format remove any ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to generate links when creating or updating text blocks' and provides a concrete usage example with update_block. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and enough context to avoid misuse. Although it does not state when not to use it, there are no obvious alternative tools for this specific task, so the guidance is sufficient.

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