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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it's a SQL lookup and returns specific fields (topics, entities, action_items, summary), but does not discuss rate limits or edge cases. No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, ~50 words, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, scope, authentication, and return fields. Lacks details on pagination or default ordering, but for a read-only search tool with annotations covering safety, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Clarifies that 'handle' and 'secret' are registration credentials, 'query' is a topic/entity name, and mentions 'limit' implicitly. Schema coverage is 60%, and the description adds meaning beyond schema for key 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'extracted memory facts', emphasizing that it's a pure SQL lookup without LLM, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_memory or recall_memories.

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?

Description mentions scope ('your memory facts') and prerequisites ('registered handle + secret required'), but does not explicitly contrast with other search tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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