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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It honestly describes the return data and gives an example, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention ordering, pagination, error behavior, or permissions. For a simple getter this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, return shape, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value and the example is front-loaded after the purpose statement, avoiding redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: what it does, what the parameter is, and what the return contains. Minor gaps like pagination or failure modes do not undermine usability for a basic read operation.

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% and the single parameter is already described as the UUID of the source page. The description's example reinforces this but adds no deeper semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get all pages that a specific page links to') and clarifies the output fields (target page title, block ID, link text). This clearly distinguishes it from get_backlinks, which would cover incoming links, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 tool's use case is clear from the description and example, and the term 'links to' implies outgoing links rather than backlinks. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_backlinks or provide an exclusion, so it stops short of the best-practice guidance level.

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