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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: the corpus is the team's *approved* memory (curated, not raw logs) and results tagged 'replaces' represent the current decision. It omits behavior when no results match and any notion of result ranking.

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 the core purpose, and every clause carries information: content scope, timing, query phrasing, and the 'replaces' convention. Slightly dense in the second sentence but nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter, read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is adequately complete — purpose, timing, query shape, repo resolution, and the one output convention that matters all appear. No critical gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and all three parameters carry their own descriptions including the list_repos fallback for resolving repo. The description's advice to use a one-line intent summary for the query largely restates what the schema already says, so it adds little new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("search the team's approved memory for a repo") and enumerates the content classes it covers (rules, architecture, commands, decisions, risks, past failures), which tells an agent far more than the title does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_repo_context or get_relevant_warnings, so the boundary remains implicit.

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?

It gives concrete trigger conditions: call while planning with a one-line intent summary, and before non-trivial changes. That is clear usage context. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when to prefer get_repo_context or get_relevant_warnings instead, so the agent must infer the split.

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