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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses billing behavior ($0.010 USD, not covered by Pro subscription), which is non-obvious and valuable, but says nothing about return format, ranking semantics at the result level, or rate/permission constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the one non-obvious operational fact (cost). No filler.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate on mechanics and pricing but omits what results look like (ranked? scored?) and, critically, how it differs from memory.recall. The cost disclosure partially compensates, keeping it at minimum viable.

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 100%, with limit defaults, query bounds, and namespace all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond BM25/ranking context, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (a namespace), plus the underlying mechanism (FTS5 with BM25 ranking), so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling memory.recall, which an agent must choose between.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance and never names or contrasts itself with memory.recall, the obvious alternative semantic-search sibling. The only context given is cost, which is a constraint rather than a usage rule.

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