doc_search_links_to

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the PRO+ plan restriction and the read-like action of finding links, but does not disclose read-only behavior, return format, pagination, or potential errors such as exceeding plan limits. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that may have side effects or require special permissions.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. However, it is under-specified, missing input details and output expectations, which limits its usefulness despite its brevity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete. It lacks information about how to specify the doc/page (as the schema is empty), what the returned links look like, and whether there are limits or ordering. The output schema is absent, so the description should have explained more, but it does not. The sibling tools with similar names suggest richer possibilities that are not addressed.

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?

The schema has zero parameters but allows additionalProperties, so there are no parameters to describe. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description mentions 'a given doc/page', implying an input despite the empty schema, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not specify how the target is passed, but the schema itself is transparent.

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 clearly states the tool finds links pointing to a given doc/page, using the verb 'find' and a specific scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool doc_search_links_from, which finds links from a page. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or specify how the target doc/page is provided.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'PRO+ plan', which is a plan requirement, not usage guidance. It does not mention situations where this tool is preferred over doc_search_links_from or other search tools.

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