Suggest links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds value by stating the embedder dependency and the semantic similarity approach, but does not disclose performance characteristics or rate limits. With annotations covering the core behavioral profile, a score of 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?

The description is two sentences long, efficiently front-loading purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: first defines what and how, second gives when and a prerequisite. No redundant text.

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 an output schema exists (not shown but mentioned in context signals), the description does not need to detail return format. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description covers usage context and dependencies. The tool is simple and well-defined, leaving no obvious gaps.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond calling the input 'draft text' and the output 'existing pages'. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, no extra credit is warranted.

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 the tool's purpose: given draft text, return existing pages to link to via semantic similarity. It distinguishes itself from search or list tools by specifying 'semantic similarity' and authoring context. The verb 'suggest' and resource 'links' are specific and unambiguous.

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 advises using the tool while authoring to avoid orphan pages, which gives clear usage context. It also notes the prerequisite of a configured embedder. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'search' or 'related_pages', which could offer comparable functionality.

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