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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing FTS5 usage, relevance scores, and TTL expiry exclusion. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or result truncation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by scoping. No wasted words. Every sentence adds essential 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?

No output schema, but description explains return type (matching entries with relevance scores). Covers authentication, namespacing, and TTL filtering. Missing details on result ordering or limit behavior, but limit is in schema. Overall adequate 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 description coverage is 60%, missing descriptions for 'handle' and 'secret'. The description incorrectly states that 'secret' is required (contradicting schema where it is optional), causing confusion. It adds some value for 'namespace' and 'query' but does not fully compensate for the gaps.

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 it is a full-text search over memory values using FTS5, returning relevance scores. It specifies the resource as 'YOUR memory', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_memory_facts'. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 mentions scoping to own memory and requiring handle+secret, but does not explicitly state when to use compared to alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use or reference to sibling tools. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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