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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does contribute meaningful behavior: result ordering (newest first among best matches) and a permission hint ("notes you may see"), which implies visibility-scoped results. It omits whether this is strictly read-only, how many results return by default, and what permission boundaries cause notes to be hidden.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what matters (scope, ordering, optional narrowing), with no filler. The phrasing "find notes you may see by their words" is slightly awkward and costs a bit of scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and ordering plus visibility are covered. But for a text-search tool with no annotations, missing details on match semantics (note body only? titles?), default result count relative to limit, and cross-shop behavior leave the agent guessing.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate, but it only gestures at q ("by their words") and repeats that target_kind narrows the search without adding meaning beyond the enum's own description. The limit parameter and required shop_id scoping are never explained, leaving two of four parameters under-specified.

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 and resource: find notes by their words, scoped to a shop and across every record. This distinguishes it in spirit from notes_list (enumerate) and search_global (cross-domain), but it never names those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 closing sentence gives a concrete trigger — search here before asking a worker something the team may have already written down — which tells the agent when to prefer this over improvisation. It stops short of stating when to use notes_list or search_global instead, or the exclusions.

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