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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond this by stating the 'caller's team access scope' filtering and the node_id filtering behavior, which are not present in annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by a focused parameter hint. No redundancy or filler; every sentence adds value.

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 read-only list tool with annotations and schema descriptions for pagination and node_id, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, scope, and key filter. It does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists, and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap. The undocumented orgId is a slight omission.

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 covers 3 of 4 parameters with descriptions (limit, offset, node_id), and the description adds a brief node_id hint that reinforces the schema but does not add substantial new meaning. The orgId parameter remains unexplained in both schema and description, keeping this at 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists 'process-to-process links' with an explicit scope ('visible within the caller's team access scope'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listClarityProcesses and createClarityProcessLink by focusing on links and their access-scoped visibility.

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 description provides clear context by defining the accessible scope and offers a specific usage hint for the node_id parameter ('Use `node_id` to find links touching a specific process node'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to infer when it applies.

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