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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results come back newest-first, private items are never returned, and nextCursor must be echoed back as cursor. It still does not describe the result shape or what happens to cursor when the query changes, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The core action and ordering come first, matching semantics second, visibility constraint and pagination instruction last — well front-loaded for an agent skimming.

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 four-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: ordering, match semantics, privacy filtering, and pagination. Remaining gaps — return fields and folder match behavior — are minor and partly inferable from the schema.

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, but the description goes beyond it by explaining the matching algorithm: the query is split into words, all words must match (AND semantics) across title, address, folder, or tag, case is ignored, and _ - / act as spaces. It also links nextCursor to the cursor parameter. It says nothing extra about limit or folder matching (exact vs substring), so it stops short of 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'List or search the saved links in the Vault' — plus the ordering ('newest first'). That is clearly distinct from save_to_vault, create_link, or get_link. It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named find_links sibling, which keeps it below 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?

Usage is only implied: it reads as the tool for browsing or querying saved links. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement and no exclusion pointing to find_links or get_link for other lookup shapes. An agent must infer the choice from the name and sibling names alone.

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