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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing which fields are searched (essence and body) and the shape of results ('short excerpts anchored by project, date and entry'), which matters because no output schema exists. It omits any recency window or result-count limits.

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 tight sentences with the search target front-loaded, followed by the output shape and the differentiator. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 usefully previews the return format and search scope, which is enough for a two-parameter read tool. It would be fully complete if it hinted at the recency boundary implied by 'recent' or any cap on results.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the literal case-insensitive match and the omit-to-search-all behavior for project. The description reinforces project scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Find WHERE a literal term or phrase appeared in the recent dated log'), names the searched fields (essence and body), and the scope (across every project). The closing line 'It searches what happened, not curated memory' distinguishes it from the memory-oriented siblings like arroway_remember and arroway_read.

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 line 'searches what happened, not curated memory' gives clear selection context against the memory tools, and 'across every project of this person or one' signals the project-scoping choice. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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