links_to

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so 'Read only' is redundant, but the description adds real behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations: links are not rewritten when a note moves, and links from private folders are excluded unless private=true. Those are exactly the consequences an agent needs before calling move_note.

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 the definition, then usage, then the alternative, then the privacy caveat. Four tight sentences with no filler; the only near-redundancy is 'Read only', which is negligible.

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?

Even though an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), it still sketches the result (each link with its line), and it covers the privacy and move-note edge cases. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the runtime effect of the private flag (private-folder links are omitted by default) rather than just restating the schema's wording. It adds no guidance on the folder parameter, so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Find backlinks: the notes that link to this note with [[wiki links]]' — including scope and return shape (line where the link is). It is immediately distinguishable from search_notes, which the description names as the plain-text alternative.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases (seeing how a person, project or idea connects; before move_note) and an explicit when-not/alternative ('Use search_notes for notes that only mention it in plain words'). The pre-move caveat is a concrete workflow trigger, not a vague hint.

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