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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only safety, but it does not state that the tool is non-destructive or any authentication requirements. It implies a read operation but with no explicit safety declaration.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The note about envelope is separate but not excessive. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the clarity of the second sentence could be improved.

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?

Given the tool has 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and a complex operation, the description lacks completeness. It omits details about the limit parameter, the optional nature of receipt_id, and any prerequisite or output structure hints despite the presence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all 8 parameters. It covers key, namespace, tags, query, prefix, envelope, and receipt_id, but misses the limit parameter entirely, and the explanation of receipt_id is contradictory. Envelope is mentioned only to say it's not needed.

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 clearly states the tool is for searching and retrieving memory records, with two modes and return types. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool nukez_retrieve, leaving potential ambiguity.

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 outlines two modes but offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The statement 'Just pass receipt_id' is misleading because receipt_id is optional in the schema.

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