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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: a per-call cost ($0.05), an API-key auth requirement, and the fact that returned moment_ids are stable (useful for later update/delete/merge calls).

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: scope first, then the return artifact, then cost/auth. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and cost/auth/pagination-relevant context is partly covered. The main gap is pagination and result-ordering semantics for limit/offset, which are not addressed anywhere given the low schema coverage.

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 only 40% (only 'to' and 'from' have descriptions; query, limit and offset have none). The description reinforces that the date range is optional, which is a small addition, but it adds no semantics for limit/offset pagination or query matching behavior, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (Moment stories and titles) plus a scope qualifier ('only owned'), so the agent knows this is a text search over the user's own moments. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_moments or the generic search tool, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 'only owned' scoping and 'optional date range' hint at when this is appropriate, but the description never says when not to use it or names an alternative (e.g., get_moments for ID lookup, merge_moments/preview_moment_duplicates for dedup). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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