search_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns matching links with click statistics,' which adds useful context about the output format beyond a simple list. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a search operation.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences: one for the search action and one for the return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (a search function with one parameter) and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the search scope and return data ('click statistics'), but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or performance considerations. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but it's adequate for basic use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter well-documented as 'Search query to match against link names, URLs, and notes.' The description adds minimal value by restating this ('Search for links by name, URL, or note') but doesn't provide additional syntax, format examples, or constraints beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search for links by name, URL, or note.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('links'), and mentions the searchable fields. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_links' or 'get_link', which could be used for similar retrieval purposes, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'list_links' (which might list all links without filtering) or 'get_link' (which might retrieve a specific link by ID), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the search functionality but not explicitly defined.

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