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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the safety bar is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral facts: an empty query returns the filtered set sorted by importance, and limit is capped at 30 — both useful and not derivable from the schema.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the edge-case behavior. Minor density of parenthetical detail but nothing that wastes space.

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 7-param, all-optional filtered search with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition gives enough to call it correctly — filters, default-empty-query behavior, and a result cap. Only the ranking/tie-break beyond "sorted by importance" is left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it names projects, types, importance_min, date_from/date_to, query, and limit. It adds format detail (ISO dates) and a hard cap (max 30) that the bare schema lacks, though it doesn't clarify the semantics of projecting types/projects values.

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 and resource ("searches saved memories") plus the differentiator — multiple filters at once. It distinguishes itself functionally from the plain sibling memory_search, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by "several filters at once", which signals the tool is for multi-filter retrieval, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over memory_search or memory_list, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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