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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety needs no restating. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing result semantics: conversation hits indicate whether work is a draft, published, or only discussed. It omits pagination/cursor behavior and any result-count limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope statement before the parameter hint and the result caveat. No filler; the only mild inefficiency is that the long content-type list is dense prose rather than structured.

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 five-parameter tool with a nested `where` object and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the primary parameter, and partial return semantics. It leaves unspecified how free-text `query` interacts with `about` and `where`, and how `cursor` paging works, which an agent needs to call it well.

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 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does so mainly for `about`, spelling out accepted forms (URL, Shopify GID, fudge:// ref) beyond the schema's shorter wording. The relationship between `query` and `about`, and the behavior of `where`, `cursor`, and the nested time/status filters, is left unexplained.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ("Search what Fudge knows about this store") and enumerates the content types it spans: memory guides, Plans, projects, findings, recommendations, recorded changes and past conversations. That enumeration distinguishes it from narrow siblings like read_store_document or get_store_overview, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Pass `about` ... for everything related to one thing" gives a clear trigger for one parameter, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool over read_store_document, get_store_overview, or list_work, and no exclusions. Usage is implied by the scope sentence rather than stated.

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