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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without detailing outcomes, error conditions, or operational nuances (e.g., what happens on no results, session requirements, or performance implications). This falls short of transparency expectations for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise—a single short sentence—which is structurally simple and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, lacking essential detail, making it more of a tautology than an informative description. Conciseness is present but at the expense of utility.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the parameters affect behavior. The one-line description does none of this, making it grossly incomplete for an agent to use effectively. No context about session memory or search semantics is provided.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (session_id, query, limit). The tool name and description simply say 'search memory,' leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained, which is insufficient for effective invocation.

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 'Search session memory' clearly identifies the action (search) and the resource (session memory), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_store. It is specific enough for basic disambiguation, though it could elaborate on the scope of 'session memory'.

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 usage for querying session memory but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling memory_store suggests a contrast, but it is not mentioned. No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving usage inferred rather than explicit.

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