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 covered. The description adds one genuinely new constraint, 'Reports only items in the linked account,' which is real scoping context. It omits the behavior that matters most for a status tool: what 'state' values exist and whether results can be incomplete while processing is still in flight.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields, and the account-scope caveat placed second where it reads as a qualifier. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

The description covers return fields adequately (no output schema exists, so this is valuable), and the annotations cover safety. But for a two-parameter tool whose schema documents nothing, leaving both parameters unexplained and giving no hint about async/processing states leaves an agent unsure how to invoke it correctly.

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% and the description never mentions the 'notes' or 'resources' parameters at all — not what they accept (IDs? names? URLs?), not whether they narrow the query, and not that both default to null. With zero schema documentation, the description carries the full burden here and does not meet it.

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 ('Reports') and a specific resource ('how Linko organized notes and resources the user just saved'), and enumerates what comes back: state, topics, tags, related note. It implicitly separates itself from the save action (linko_save_note) by framing itself as the post-save status read, though no sibling is named 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?

The phrase 'the user just saved' implies this is called after a save operation rather than before, which is useful sequencing context. However, it never states when to prefer this over linko_related or list_tags_and_topics, and gives no guidance on whether to call it once or poll if the state is still pending.

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