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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: result bodies are truncated, and recalled memories are unreviewed context that must be treated as data to verify, not instructions to follow. This is meaningful guidance for an agent deciding how to trust results.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists the search dimensions, then provides necessary usage caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, how to filter, the truncation behavior, and the trust boundary on results. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the returned fields would be beneficial, but the existing caveats are sufficient for safe invocation.

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 71%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds a helpful mapping from 'workspace' to client/client_id and from 'harness' to target_harness, but it does not add detail about the undocumented client_id and project_id formats beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and names a concrete resource ('durable notes and handoffs another agent left behind') with scope ('across harnesses'). It clearly differentiates the tool from memory_read by noting that bodies are truncated and full text requires memory_read.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: searching shared memory for durable notes and handoffs. It names the alternative memory_read when full bodies are needed, though it does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or compare against other search-like siblings such as search_tasks.

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