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 clarifies the corpus it searches (conversations and session history) but adds nothing about result ranking, pagination, or result shape, and there is no output schema to cover that gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The scope statement comes first and the usage guidance follows immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 should ideally hint at what search returns (ranking, snippet format, pagination), and it does not. Coverage of purpose and parameters is adequate, but the missing return-value context leaves a real gap.

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 query, top_k, source, and days_back are fully documented in the schema with defaults, ranges, and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

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: search across ingested conversations and session history. It implicitly distinguishes itself from fact-based siblings by targeting 'context that wasn't explicitly stored as a fact', though it never names search_facts directly.

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 a clear context for use (finding discussions, decisions made in conversation, or context not stored as a fact), which effectively routes the agent away from search_facts. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when...' exclusion statement.

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