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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that matching spans JSON values, descriptions and summaries, not just keys, but says nothing about match semantics (case sensitivity, literal vs. tokenized), result ordering, or how paging behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word earns its place. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the heavier scoping and paging questions unaddressed elsewhere.

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 twelve-parameter search tool with no output schema, one sentence is thin: it omits default behavior (scope defaults to active, so archived versions are silently excluded), pagination expectations, and the fact that status filtering only applies to hierarchical memories. The annotations cover safety but not the query semantics an agent needs to build a correct call.

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 twelve parameters, including the enums for tier, scope, status and memory_type, are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the searchable fields that the `search` parameter description already conveys, adding no syntax, precedence, or combination rules (e.g. how tags, scope and search interact).

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 ("Search") and resource ("memory") plus the fields scanned (keys, JSON values, descriptions, summaries), so an agent knows exactly what is matched. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling read_memory, so the agent must infer that one is a key lookup and the other a text 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?

No when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to read_memory as the alternative for direct key retrieval. The only guidance is implicit in the word "Search"; nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this tool when it already has a key or when it needs to page through archived versions.

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