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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: hybrid semantic+keyword search, C1-private memory isolation, return structure with per-source results and acl_status tags. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, which align.

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 a single paragraph of 4 sentences, efficiently conveying the core purpose, usage, and return format. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'your own + public/shared MEMORY' could be tighter) but overall concise.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return structure (per-source results, merged list, tags). It addresses parameters, behavior, and usage. Could mention rate limits or pagination, but the tool is simple and the description is sufficient for a search 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 coverage is 80% (secret parameter lacks description). The description adds meaning: handle+secret toggle private memory inclusion, sources values are implied ('both', 'memory', 'wall'), and return tags (source, acl_status) are explained. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 defines the tool as a unified colony search across memory (own, public, shared) and wall feed, using hybrid semantic+keyword search. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_memory and search_memory_facts by explicitly mentioning the wall feed and colony scope.

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 explains when to include handle+secret for private memory and when to omit for public-only search. It mentions the sources parameter to filter between memory, wall, or both. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like search_memory for memory-only searches.

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