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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the specific data sources searched (notes, journal, activities) and the fact that results come back ranked and are meant to be synthesized rather than returned raw.

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?

Two sentences, the trigger condition front-loaded before the mechanics. The examples are the only elaboration and they directly help an agent decide to call the tool, so nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers trigger, sources, and result shape. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against memory.semantic.search, which matters given how similar the names are.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'question' as a natural language string. The description's examples hint at the kind of phrasing expected, but add no format, length, or syntax guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource (search memory) and enumerates the corpora it covers — notes, journal, activities — which an agent can act on directly. The only weakness is that it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling memory.semantic.search, nor from source-specific listers like notes.list or journal.list.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ("when the user asks a question about their people or past") reinforced with two concrete question examples, which is exactly the invocation context an agent needs. However, it offers no exclusions or routing guidance against memory.semantic.search, the obvious alternative for the same intent.

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