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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering, empty-query fallback to most recent, and that results carry anchor, confidence and staleness flags. It does not cover pagination beyond the limit parameter, so it is strong rather than 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?

The core action and its scoping/ordering rules are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a short usage directive and the return-shape note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 takes on the burden of describing returns and does so (anchor, confidence, staleness). Combined with the usage cue and the empty-query fallback, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by stating the relevance/ordering model (newest first) and the empty-query behavior, and by clarifying that tags are conjunctive in prose. The repo_id and limit semantics remain schema-only, but that is already well documented there.

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 (search) and resource (the team's saved notes), plus filtering axes (text and tags) and ordering (newest first). It explicitly ties itself to the sibling tool that creates these notes ('made with remember'), so an agent can separate recall from remember without opening either 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?

Gives a concrete use condition: 'Use it before re-deciding something the team may already have settled,' and implicitly frames remember as the write counterpart. It stops short of naming explicit exclusions or other retrieval siblings (e.g. recap, get_briefing), so usage routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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