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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the return contents (matching links, recoverable access codes, recipients), which matters because there is no output schema. 'Does not modify pages' is mildly redundant with readOnlyHint but reinforcing.

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 short sentences with the search scope front-loaded and the return contents following. The closing 'Does not modify pages' is largely redundant given readOnlyHint, so it's not maximally economical, but nothing else is wasted.

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 3-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers search axes, scope, and return contents, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The one gap is behavior with an empty/all-empty parameter set, since no parameter is required.

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 (to, query, project) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same axes without adding syntax, matching behavior, or interaction rules (e.g. whether query and to combine with AND). Baseline 3.

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 (search) and resource (links) with the searchable dimensions (title, slug, project, recipient name/email) and the scope (authenticated workspace). An agent can distinguish this from page/project/audience tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling link_report, 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?

'Useful for finding an existing deliverable or its sharing details' implies the use case but gives no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives. Since the tool accepts zero required params, guidance on what happens when the query is empty would be especially valuable and is absent.

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