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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: matching covers the one-line essence and body, results are compact excerpts anchored by project/date/entry, full days are never returned, and the default scope is all accessible projects. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers matching behavior, scope, output shape, and a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly: what is searched, how matches work, how to narrow scope, and the nature of returned excerpts. It does not mention result limits or ordering, a minor gap given the description already explains the essential behavior.

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 100% and both parameters have solid descriptions. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying the default behavior when 'project' is omitted, that 'query' is a literal case-insensitive term, and that matching applies to both essence and body. This goes beyond the schema 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('recent DATED LOG') and the exact need ('WHERE something was said'). It also distinguishes itself from curated memory and explicitly names arroway_read as a tool it does not replace, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use context ('when you need to know WHERE something was said'), explains the default scope and how to narrow it with 'project', and warns that it should not replace arroway_read before acting. It does not systematically enumerate sibling alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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