get_document_backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. The description adds the return type ('Formatted string listing all documents') which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not introduce additional traits like auth requirements or side effects.

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 concise (around 100 words) and well-structured with a header, bullet points, and clear sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers all essentials: purpose, usage context, parameter meaning, and return format. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 parameter 'document_id' is described as 'The document ID to find backlinks for', adding clear semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description compensates well, though it could be slightly more precise (e.g., note it's the document ID, not a URL).

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 'Finds all documents that link to a specific document', using a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete use cases (discover references, identify dependencies, find related documents, understand connections) which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_document or search_documents.

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 explicitly lists scenarios for use ('Use this tool when you need to:'). While it does not provide explicit negative guidance or alternatives, the context is clear and an agent can easily determine when to use this tool vs siblings.

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