get_backlinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it states the default return shape (id/title/folder_path plus snippet), warns that include_content is expensive, says results are paginated, and documents exact→prefix→substring title resolution. This goes well beyond what the schema alone provides.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, with each clause adding a distinct operational fact: return shape, cost trade-off, pagination, and id/title resolution. There is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides the essentials: what it returns by default, what the expensive alternative returns, pagination behavior, and parameter semantics. There is nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly that is missing.

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 descriptions are 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the meaning of id/title (either works, with explicit resolution), include_content (full text, expensive), and the paginated nature of limit/offset. The schema still supplies defaults and constraints, so together they are sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get notes that link to the given note via [[Title]] wikilinks.' This unambiguously defines the tool as an inbound-wikilink lookup and separates it from get_note, search_notes, and get_neighbors.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use the default response versus include_content:true, and names get_note as the cheaper alternative for retrieving full text of specific notes. It also communicates pagination convention and the forgiving title lookup order, so the agent knows how to call it correctly and when to prefer another tool.

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