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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the public-only scope, the absence of an auth requirement, and the Persian full-text matching model, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or what an empty result means for a two-parameter search tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the scope constraint (PUBLIC, Persian) front-loaded and no filler, aside from the mildly promotional 'Great for exploring'. Its brevity costs little but also buys little depth.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, authentication, and language, which is most of what an agent needs to call it. Return shape and pagination remain unspecified but are low stakes for a capped 20-result search.

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 50%: the query parameter is already documented in the schema, and limit is undocumented in both places. The description reinforces that the query is Persian free text but adds no syntax, matching, or limit semantics beyond what the schema states, so it sits at the 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 gives a concrete verb and resource: 'full-text search over PUBLIC published memories', and adds the language constraint (Persian). This separates it from private-memory siblings like get_my_memories and get_my_drafts, though it never names those siblings 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?

'Great for exploring Lahze before writing' implies a discovery/browse context and 'No account needed' signals a pre-auth use case, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_my_memories or search_places guidance and no stated exclusions, leaving routing to inference.

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