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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are ranked by similarity, limited by default 8, paginated via next_cursor/has_more, and namespace defaults to shared. This gives the agent a solid model of side-effect-free search behavior without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three economical paragraphs lead with the core purpose, then ordering/limit, pagination, namespace, and return shape. Every sentence carries useful operational information, and the structure lets an agent quickly absorb how to call the tool correctly.

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 4-parameter search tool with no schema descriptions and an output schema present, this description covers all needed operational details: query semantics, result ranking and bound, pagination workflow, namespace behavior, and return shape. Nothing essential is left to guesswork.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for every parameter: query (meaning-based match), limit (bounds results, default 8), cursor (use with next_cursor/has_more), and namespace (selects collection, shared default). This is far better than relying on bare property names and types.

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+resource: 'Search memories by meaning and return the closest matches.' This distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like get_memory (single exact) and list_memories (listing), and from mutation tools like remember/forget. No ambiguity remains about the tool's core function.

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 establishes clear usage context: semantic similarity search with ranked results, pagination via cursor/has_more, and namespace selection. It does not explicitly name an alternative when not to use recall, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly in most cases.

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