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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the search corpus boundary (private notes excluded) and the shape of the result (notes/pages/pins with snippets). It omits ranking/ordering and truncation behavior, but the core behavioral picture is clear.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and corpus, then the exclusion, then the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned keys and snippet presence, and annotations cover the safety profile for a read-only search. What remains thin is matching behavior and result ordering, which an agent would want when deciding between search and listing.

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 q, limit and campaign are already documented including slug-or-id and the default of 10. The description adds no extra meaning such as query syntax, matching rules, or whether limit applies per kind, leaving it at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find words') plus the exact resources searched (shared notes, wiki, shared map pins), which clearly separates it from list_my_notes, list_wiki_pages or get_wiki_page. It stops short of naming a sibling, so an agent still has to infer that the *list/get* tools are the way to browse rather than search.

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 exclusion 'Private notes are never searched here' implicitly routes the agent toward list_my_notes / list_my_private_pins when private content is the target, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement versus get_wiki_page or list_pins, and no mention of whether a campaign slug prerequisite restricts it further.

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