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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: search is scoped to the authenticated Bearer key, agent_id is accepted but not used for partitioning, and the return format is keys + snippets. It also defers to memory_store's note for further partitioning context, which is transparent without over-explaining.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence earns its place. It includes the scope, an important caveat, and a use-case justification without any fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description covers the return value adequately with 'keys + snippets.' The schema handles parameter details, annotations cover safety, and the description adds usage context. It lacks details on result ordering or pagination, but for a simple search tool this is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description slightly reinforces the agent_id caveat (already in schema) and mentions the return format, but it does not add new semantic meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a search across stored memories and returns matching keys and snippets. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling memory_get, memory_list, or memory_store tools beyond the obvious 'search' verb, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 a clear usage context: 'Extremely useful for large memory stores in long-running projects or multi-week agent workflows.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative memory tools, so it falls short of the explicit exclusions/alternatives criterion but provides solid contextual guidance.

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