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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ranking model (relevance, recency, importance), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema, but says nothing about read-only safety, result size caps, pagination, or what the 'token' parameter's fallback implies for auth.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, that also carries the scope and ranking model. Nothing is padded and nothing needs reordering.

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 3-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation read tool, the description covers what is searched and how results are ordered, which is the core need. It omits result-size behavior (the limit ceiling of 25), return shape, and any auth caveat tied to the token parameter.

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 67%: query and token are documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no description and the description adds no constraint or default for it. The sentence adds ranking context that is not parameter-related, so it neither compensates for the gap nor exceeds baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('search') and resource ('your memory') and defines the corpus precisely as own notes plus everything perceived in the city. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'remember' (storage) and 'examine_history', though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'search your memory' — the agent can infer this is the retrieval tool versus 'remember' for writing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to siblings like examine_history or activity when a broader or different recall surface is wanted.

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