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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by identifying the search backend (FTS5), multilingual support, and the corpus searched, but it does not describe result format, ranking, pagination, or any authentication constraints.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the search mechanism, scope, and indexed content types, so every phrase contributes information.

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?

The tool is simple, read-only, and has one required parameter, with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema to explain. However, the description does not distinguish this search tool from knos_memory_recall or clarify query semantics, so it is only minimally complete for correct tool selection and 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 0%, and the single parameter q is undocumented in the schema. The description hints that q is an FTS5 multilingual search query, but it does not explain FTS5 syntax, phrase/boolean behavior, or how the query is interpreted, leaving meaningful gaps for the only parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: FTS5 search over the agents' memory and the Knos Record, with concrete examples of indexed content. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling knos_memory_recall, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies that the tool is used for searching memory and the Knos Record, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as knos_memory_recall. An agent must infer usage context from the purpose statement alone.

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