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 covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: the search is literal, not semantic, and is limited to the 'recent' log rather than full history. It does not say how recent, how results are ordered or capped, or whether matches are substring or token based, which is the remaining gap for an agent deciding if results are exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the memory/log disambiguation placed second because it is secondary. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and matching mode adequately. The one loose end is the undefined 'recent' window, which matters for judging whether results are complete, but it is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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%: query is documented as a literal, case-insensitive term up to 200 chars, and project as an optional slug whose omission searches all projects. The description restates rather than extends this, adding no syntax, matching, or slug-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?

Names a specific verb (find), the resource (dated log), and the scope (one project or all of them), and contrasts the target of the search: 'searches what happened, not curated memory.' That distinguishes it conceptually from the memory-oriented siblings such as arroway_remember and arroway_read without needing to open a schema.

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 phrase 'not curated memory' tells the agent when to pick this over the memory tools, and 'in one project or all of them' encodes the project-vs-global choice. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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