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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or cost from this description.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It immediately tells the agent what the tool does (search) and the resource (memories) followed by the key filters.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, pagination via limit, or the role of namespace. The agent lacks context to craft a complete call (e.g., required agentId is not mentioned in description, only in schema).

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 description adds meaning by naming the search criteria (prefix, tags, type), which map to parameters keyPrefix, tags, and type. However, it omits agentId, limit, and namespace, leaving 3 of 6 parameters unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 states the tool searches memories by prefix, tags, or type, clearly identifying the action (search) and resource (memories). It distinguishes from siblings like agent_memory_get (single memory retrieval) and agent_memory_store (storage), but could be more explicit about the resource being agent-specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when to use search vs get, nor does it specify prerequisites or excluded scenarios (e.g., exact match versus semantic search).

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