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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds little beyond restating the title, but it does not contradict the annotations and no destructive caveats are needed.

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 is concise and readable, though its brevity leaves room for more useful guidance about when to choose this tool over similar siblings.

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 simple read-only nature, annotations, and full schema coverage, the definition is minimally viable. However, the lack of sibling differentiation and usage context for embedding-based versus keyword or hybrid search leaves a meaningful gap for correct tool selection.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the semantics of memory_id, embedding, limit, and galaxy, including that embedding is an alternative to memory_id. The description itself contributes no additional parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it is a vector-similarity 'search' over 'memory embeddings'. It clearly communicates the core operation, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like memory.search or memory.hybrid_recall.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory.search, memory.hybrid_recall, or memory.nearby. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate invocation context.

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