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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: 'No registration required,' which tells the agent the actorToken is optional and no auth handshake is needed before calling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope/auth note. Efficient, though the 'read-only' clause partially restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 no output schema, the description should say what a search returns (entries, snippets, scores) and how results relate to read_entry, but it does not. The role of actorToken versus the register_actor sibling is also unexplained, leaving the agent to infer the whole call flow.

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 only 33% — only actorToken is documented, and the description explains none of the parameters. The primary required parameter 'q' (its query syntax, 200-char limit) and the 'limit' default are left entirely to the schema.

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 (Remnalis public memory) with a clear scope qualifier ('read-only', 'public'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like open_memory_work or read_entry, which also touch memory.

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?

The phrase 'for context relevant to the current task' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the five sibling tools. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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