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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors beyond the schema: password references are filtered out of the results, and issue links are enriched with current status and priority. It says nothing about read-only semantics, empty results, or permission requirements for the source resource.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the two behavioral caveats. The parenthetical and the second clause both carry real information; no padding.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (links, plus status/priority for issues) and one exclusion. The missing pieces are the meaning of the required parameters and any guidance on the inverse backlinks tool, which matters given that sibling exists.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never explains sourceType or sourceId. The enum values (note, expedient_line, log, issue, task) are somewhat self-descriptive, but which id namespace sourceId refers to and how it pairs with each sourceType is left entirely undocumented.

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 resource and direction: outgoing links of a resource ('Enlaces salientes de un recurso'), with the clarifying question '¿a qué apunta?' that pins the direction. It does not name references_backlinks, its obvious inverse sibling, so the distinction is implied by the adjective rather than made explicit.

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?

Gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the complementary tool (references_backlinks) for the opposite direction. An agent must infer usage entirely from the phrase 'salientes'.

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