List linked entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response format, or filtering semantics. It merely restates the basic action.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters. Still, it is concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

With no output schema and low annotation coverage, the description is too minimal. It omits crucial context about filtering, pagination, and what 'linked entities' means, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 17%, and the description does not explain parameters like filter_to_entity_id or page/limit. The entity_type enum is self-explanatory, but filter_to_entity_type expands beyond the main entity types (including catalog_elements) without clarification.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and specifies resource ('entities linked to a lead, contact, company, or customer'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling link management tools like kommo_links_link/unlink.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools or link management tools. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned; usage must be inferred from the title.

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