Get Document Links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, limits, or error behavior), but it also does not contradict annotations. Since the description adds little beyond the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the function and scope, the second provides usage examples. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and all parameters optional, the description does not explain the implicit requirement that at least one of entity_id or document_id must be provided, nor does it describe the return format. While the core purpose is clear, this omission could lead to incorrect calls.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it does not clarify that entity_id and document_id are likely mutually exclusive, or that entity_type is required when entity_id is used. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 (get) and resource (documents linked to an entity or entities linked to a document), with a concrete list of entity types. Clearly distinguishes its bidirectional nature from siblings like search_documents and find_related_documents, even without naming them.

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?

Provides two explicit user-phrase examples ('what documents are attached to this invoice?' / 'show me what's linked to that receipt') that indicate when to use the tool. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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