links_search_trigger_links

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name, such as return format, pagination behavior, or how search results are scoped. It fails to describe the search semantics or any quirks beyond what the annotations imply.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence. However, it is so short that it borders on under-specification, failing to provide any additional structured context. While it is not verbose, the lack of useful details reduces the value of its conciseness.

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 search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'trigger links' are, how search results are returned, or when this tool is preferred over alternatives. The annotations cover safety but not functional context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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%, meaning all four parameters (skip, limit, query, locationId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or clarifications about how the parameters affect the search, such as the interpretation of 'query' in the context of trigger links. Since the schema handles parameter semantics, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search Trigger Links' clearly states a verb (search) and a resource (trigger links). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like links_get_links by specifying 'trigger links' as the search target, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. It's not a tautology and conveys the core function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like links_get_links or links_get_link_by_id. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific conditions for choosing this search over other link-related tools. Usage context is entirely absent.

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