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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the trailing 'Read-only' merely restates them. Beyond that, the description discloses the id-based fetch handoff, which is genuine added value, but says nothing about result limits, ranking/matching behavior (semantic vs. keyword), or pagination.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, and the fetch guidance is placed where it is useful. The final 'Read-only' clause is redundant against the annotations and is the only wasted fragment.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the return shape in rough terms, and the follow-up step. It still leaves an agent guessing about result count limits, ordering, and how this search differs from recall_memories, which matters given several overlapping siblings.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description says the tool searches 'saved memories' but adds no detail about query syntax, matching mode, or scoping, so it does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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 the user's saved memories') plus the outcome ('return matching results'), which is clearer than a generic search. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools that clearly overlap in intent, notably search_notes and recall_memories, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The description gives one useful routing instruction — use fetch to retrieve full text of a result by id — which establishes the search-then-fetch workflow. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over recall_memories or search_notes, and no exclusions, so usage is only partially implied.

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