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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does reasonably well: it discloses default ordering (newest first when no query), a non-obvious default filtering rule (superseded entries excluded), and an auth requirement (api_key). It stops short of describing pagination behavior or the shape/size of results, which matters for a recall tool with no output schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and mechanism, and the trailing auth note is terse. No filler, though the fragments are dense and slightly telegraphic.

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 7-parameter, unannotated tool with no output schema, the description covers the key defaults and the search mechanism but omits pagination semantics, result format, and what the limit default is. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to probe.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate and partially does: it explains q as keyword search over content and tags, tag/collection filtering, and the include_superseded default. It adds nothing about the undocumented limit and offset parameters, leaving those ambiguous.

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 and resource ('Recall your memories') and immediately characterizes the mechanism as keyword search over content and tags, which distinguishes it from memory_remember/forget/update. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling memory_export or team_recall, so no sibling differentiation credit.

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 implies when the tool applies (searching your own memories) and gives conditions like 'newest first when no query' and 'filter by tag or collection.' However, it never says when to use this instead of memory_export or team_recall, nor any exclusion beyond the superseded default.

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