search_links

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the whole burden. It usefully discloses that matching is full-text across four fields (so agents know partial-token matching applies), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or that it is a non-mutating read. Partial coverage of a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the resource plus search scope are front-loaded so an agent can decide immediately.

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 three-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and query scope but leaves the result shape, ordering, and pagination unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by explaining that the query matches title, summary, tags, and URL, which tells an agent how to phrase queries (e.g., tag names are searchable directly). Limit and project are left to the schema.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('stored URL bookmarks'), the mechanism (FTS5), and the searchable fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_links (enumerate) and search_by_tags (tag-only search) without needing to open schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource type (bookmarks vs. entries/instructions) and the FTS5 field scope, but the description never says when to prefer it over list_links, search_by_tags, or search_entries. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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