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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, which covers safety, but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't mention pagination, result ordering, filtering semantics, or that it returns mixed content types. Given the read-only annotation, the description should still disclose what the tool does beyond just 'find', which it does not.

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 a single, short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the core action but sacrifices necessary detail. While concise, it doesn't earn its place because it conveys too little.

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 six parameters, an output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain how the search works, what the parameters do, or how results are structured. An agent cannot call this tool correctly based on the available information.

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 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The description names none of the six parameters (q, tag, room, limit, cursor, source) or their purpose, so an agent has no idea what to pass. This is a critical gap that the description must fill, and it fails completely.

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 states a verb ('find') and a resource ('notes, questions and rooms'), which is better than a tautology, but the phrase 'to build on' is vague and doesn't clarify the scope. It doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'search_pages', leaving ambiguity about whether this searches pages or just notes/questions/rooms. The purpose is only partially clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_pages' or 'browse_frontpage'. There is no mention of exclusions or specific use cases, so an agent must infer when this is appropriate.

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