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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that matching is semantic (not keyword) and that the corpus is persisted long-term facts rather than raw messages, which is real context. It says nothing about result limits, ranking, or the top_n cap of 12.

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 tight sentence with the key qualifiers (semantic, long-term, facts) front-loaded. No waste, though it is arguably too short to carry the guidance the tool needs.

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?

No output schema and no annotations beyond safety, so the description should explain what a returned 'fact' looks like and how many come back. With both parameters undocumented and no usage routing against ten siblings, the definition is materially incomplete for a search tool.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter. top_n in particular carries a non-obvious 1-12 bound and default behavior that is left entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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+resource combination: semantic search over the room's long-term memory facts. 'Semantic' and 'facts' distinguish it from raw message retrieval, but it does not name or contrast with close siblings like get_decisions or get_recent_messages, which also retrieve room-level knowledge.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over the many other retrieval siblings (get_decisions, get_recent_messages, get_project_state). The agent must infer the routing from the noun 'memory' alone.

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