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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context beyond that: it names the return contents (matching links, recoverable access codes, recipients) and scopes the search to the authenticated workspace.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded first. The final sentence ('Does not modify pages') is largely redundant with readOnlyHint=true, so it is the one line that does not fully earn its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by summarizing what is returned (links, access codes, recipients), and annotations cover safety. Missing only edge details such as result limits or pagination, minor for a read-only search tool with fully documented parameters.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only echoes those facets without adding syntax, matching rules, or combination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a precise verb+resource (search links) plus the searchable facets (title, slug, project, recipient name/email), which clearly identifies what the tool does. No sibling tool competes for the same purpose (link_report is analytical), but the description never explicitly differentiates itself from that sibling, which 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?

It states a clear usage context: 'Useful for finding an existing deliverable or its sharing details,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but the use case is unambiguous.

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