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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description's added pagination contract ("next_cursor continues while has_more is true") and the explicit no-fetch/no-generation guarantee are genuine extra context. It stops short of stating chunk size, limits, or what happens with an invalid cursor.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and side-effect guarantee. The middle sentence about content_source and content_quality is a bit tangential since those are output fields covered by the output schema.

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 paginated read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the essentials: safety profile reinforcement, pagination mechanics, and URL return. The only real gap is the unexplained timezone and cursor-default 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden; it partially compensates by explaining the cursor/next_cursor/has_more pagination loop. However, resource_id, timezone, and the cursor's default value are never given meaning in the description, leaving half the parameter set 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 verb (reads) plus resource (an exact resource saved in the linked account), scope (bounded chunks), and return identity (its Linko URL). It also excludes the sibling 'fetch' behavior ("starts no web fetch or AI generation"), letting an agent separate this from search_resources and fetch.

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 reads only existing stored or cached source text and starts no web fetch or AI generation" gives clear when-not guidance and implicitly routes live retrieval to fetch. It does not name the alternative sibling tools explicitly, so the routing is inferable rather than spelled out.

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