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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the scoping fact that the corpus is cloud memory facts; it says nothing about ranking, result shape, or how the limit interacts with total matches.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the scope of the search is front-loaded ahead of the query tip. Every sentence carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description could reasonably say what a match looks like or how results are ordered. The corpus-vs-name mismatch (search_notes returning 'memory facts') is left unresolved for the agent.

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 100% and the two parameters are already documented ('Search terms.', 'Max results (default 10)'). The description adds a modest hint about query style with 'Plain words work best', but nothing about matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy, stemming) to supplement the schema.

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 method ('Full-text keyword search') plus the corpus ('the user's cloud memory facts'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like 'search' or 'recall_memories', leaving the agent to guess which search surface to use.

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?

'Plain words work best' is query-formatting advice rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over 'search' or 'recall_memories', so usage is only implied by the verb 'search'.

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