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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states that the tool 'Returns pages matching the search query with their IDs,' which covers the output. It also gives examples showing different parameter combinations. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (which is likely given the 'search' verb), whether there are any side effects, or how results are ordered. It also does not mention behavior when no parameters are given. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps, so 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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with the tool's purpose in the first sentence, then gives usage guidance, followed by concrete examples. There is minimal redundancy, and the examples are illustrative without being verbose. It is not maximally tight (e.g., 'Search for pages to link to' and 'Use this before creating links' are slightly repetitive), but it is efficient and front-loaded with the core information.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it returns (pages with IDs) and how to use it. It does not, however, specify the response format in detail (e.g., whether it returns a list, what fields are included beyond IDs), nor does it explain behavior when no parameters are supplied or how query and folder_id interact when combined. Since there is no output schema, the description could do more to clarify the return structure, but the essentials are present. A 3 reflects that it is sufficient for basic usage but not fully 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (limit, query, folder_id) with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing examples that clarify how the parameters are used (e.g., 'query' does a title search, 'folder_id' lists pages in a folder, 'limit' caps results). Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline is 3; the description reinforces their meaning but does not add significantly new semantics beyond the examples.

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: 'Search for pages to link to.' It specifies the resource (pages) and the purpose (to link), and mentions that it returns IDs for use with create_page_link. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_pages, which might also return pages. The purpose is clear enough for most agents to understand what it does, but the lack of explicit distinction from search_pages keeps it from a 5.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this before creating links to find the right page.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, such as search_pages, which could be used for general page search. The guidance is clear for the primary use case but lacks exclusions or alternatives, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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