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

Even with annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: word matching prioritizes titles, retired entries are excluded by default, long bodies are truncated with body_truncated, id returns an entry regardless of status, notices flag instruction-like text, and missing ledgers return hint and known_projects.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, and nearly every sentence carries operational value. There is minor redundancy at the end with 'Free.' and 'Free to call.', but overall it remains dense and purposeful rather than padded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the returned entries, fields, truncation marker, notice behavior, hint fallback, and omitted empty fields. For an agent invoking this tool, the description supplies everything needed to understand both how to query and what to expect back.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It explains how query terms are matched and weighted, how empty query behaves, how include_retired affects visibility, and that id overrides other filters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: search the project's ledger for decisions, attempts, and prohibitions. It clearly distinguishes recall from write-oriented siblings like record_entry and retire_entry by framing it as a retrieval tool for prior context.

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 strong when-to-use guidance: before planning a change, removing code, or repeating an approach. Query construction is explained with concrete examples, and special cases like empty query, include_retired, kind filtering, and id lookup are covered. It does not explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools like brief, but the operating context is clear.

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