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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It adds the conceptual return shape (notes containing [[links]] to this one) and a use case, but says nothing about ordering, whether results are paths or snippets, or whether a note with no backlinks returns an empty list or an error.

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 with the operation front-loaded before the value claim; nothing is redundant. The rhetorical question framing is slightly less direct than a declarative statement, and the second sentence is a generic value claim rather than actionable guidance.

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?

This is a low-complexity, single-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to reconcile against. The description covers what it does and roughly what it returns; only the result format and empty-result behavior remain unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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% and the single path parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description implies the path identifies the target note ("this note") but adds no format details, such as whether it is vault-relative and whether the .md extension is required.

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 defines the jargon in the tool name: it returns the notes that link to a given note using [[...]] wiki-link syntax, which is a specific verb+resource. It is clearly distinct from read_note (reads content) and search_notes (searches text), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 to find context around a topic" gives an implied use case for invoking it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternative tools such as search_notes for partial or unlinked mentions, and no stated prerequisites.

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