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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by clarifying that opening shares and saves nothing, that resource records contain descriptions and source links rather than full text, and that text-only hosts get only the first page. It does not explain what draft_title and draft_content do on a read-only open call, leaving a gap a curious agent would hit.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then the alternative, then host-specific behavior; no filler sentences. It is dense but each sentence carries information, though the draft_* parameters are mentioned nowhere at all.

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?

No output schema, but the description compensates reasonably by describing the result shape (first page of results, descriptions and source links rather than full text). It falls short for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, since half the parameters go unexplained.

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 description carries full burden. It explains query and kind only at the level of 'open a filtered view', and completely omits draft_title and draft_content — the two parameters whose presence on a read-only tool is genuinely surprising and needs justification.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: opening the user's Linko library to browse and search notes and saved resources. It carves out an explicit boundary against draft_note, but does not differentiate from other library-facing siblings like linko_search, linko_panel, or search_notes.

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 gives clear use conditions — browsing/searching the library and choosing which records to add — and names one alternative (draft_note) with the condition that selects it. It also reassures the agent about side effects ('opening shares none of them and saves nothing'), which helps in deciding to call it. No exclusions relative to linko_search or search_notes are stated.

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