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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about result ordering, fuzzy vs exact matching, result limits, or what 'mention candidates' look like.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, but also no front-loading of anything actionable and no structure at all — the brevity comes from omission rather than from efficient writing.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain query semantics and how it differs from linko_search/search_notes. It covers only the general intent, leaving both the input meaning and sibling routing to guesswork.

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 0%, so the single required 'query' parameter is undocumented everywhere. The description should have explained whether the query is free text, a keyword, a title fragment, or something else, and it says nothing, leaving the only input ambiguous.

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 ('Finds') and resource ('the user's notes and resources'), plus a use context ('to mention in a message'). However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like linko_search, search_notes, or search_resources, which read as overlapping search tools, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.

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?

'To mention in a message' implies a usage context (composing a message and needing candidates to reference), which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of linko_search or linko_related as alternatives, and no statement about prerequisites.

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