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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations: automatic degradation to keyword search when embeddings are unavailable, which changes how results should be interpreted. Result volume/pagination is left to the schema's 'limit' field and the output schema, so no further disclosure is required.

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, no filler. The usage trigger and scope come first, and the fallback caveat is demoted to the second clause where it belongs.

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?

With a full output schema, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description only needs to carry intent, scope, and behavior — which it does. The remaining gap is the unstated distinction from memory.search, the sibling an agent is most likely to confuse this with.

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 100% for all three parameters (query, limit, types), each with its own inline description, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 action (find by meaning rather than exact words) and enumerates the searchable scope: people, notes, conversations, and journal entries. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the obvious sibling 'memory.search', so an agent must infer the boundary between semantic and keyword retrieval on its own.

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 a clear selection condition ('fuzzy or conceptual searches') and discloses the embeddings-unavailable fallback to keyword search. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to memory.search as the exact-match alternative, which is the one routing decision the sibling list makes relevant.

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