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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are 'ranked matches' and scoped to the user's CortexPlus memory, but does not disclose more about result behavior, pagination, or limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, with the primary purpose up front and usage guidance immediately after. No wasted words or redundant restatement.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose, scope, and when to use it. It only falls short in parameter semantics, which is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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?

The schema documents query with 'What to look for', but limit has no description. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance, leaving limit's semantics to be inferred from its name. With only 50% schema coverageached, the description should have compensated but does not.

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 ('Search'), resource ('the user's CortexPlus memory'), and outcome ('return ranked matches'). It clearly describes the tool's core functionchers purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like recall or remember.

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 gives explicit guidance: use it before answering from memory when you need to find what the user has stored. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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