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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation. The description adds that results are relevant facts and insights from prior conversations, but it omits scope limits, ranking behavior, pagination, or required permissions, which would be useful behavioral context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage triggers, then return nature. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague filler.

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 simple read-only search with one fully documented parameter, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and roughly what it returns. It could say more about result shape or no-result behavior, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the single query parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description implies the query is the search input but adds no syntax, scope, or formatting detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, 'past conversation memories', and clarifies the target is relevant context. The counterpart save_memory is not named, but the search-versus-save distinction is unambiguous from the verb and resource.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: past work, previous troubleshooting, earlier decisions, or 'did we already do X?'. It does not name save_memory as the alternative for storing new memories or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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