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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and excels: it discloses the cost, ranking algorithm (cosine similarity with nomic-embed-text), local computation, privacy guarantee (raw vectors never returned), and the payment flow. This is far more than typical and gives the agent a complete behavioral picture.

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 tightly packed into two sentences, with the most critical operational detail (cost) front-loaded. Every clause adds value: methodology, privacy, and payment processing. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not cover return values, and it fully covers the remaining aspects: purpose, payment, algorithm, privacy, and execution steps. For a tool of this complexity, it is complete and provides all necessary context for safe invocation.

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 covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics; it only gives context about 'current beliefs' and the payment workflow, which does not materially enhance understanding of the query, k, or kind parameters.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('your CURRENT beliefs'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like mnemos_store or mnemos_provision. The mention of 'CURRENT' also differentiates from historical tools like mnemos_as_of, and the semantic nature is explicit.

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 provides clear usage context: this tool is for semantic search over current beliefs, and it includes payment instructions (x402 quote, X-TENANT-KEY). While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the emphasis on 'CURRENT' implies it is for current-state queries, which is sufficient guidance.

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