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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the search is bilingual EN/ES, and results may contain labeled expanded keyword matches and unrelated browse suggestions, warning the agent about result quality. It does not discuss limits or ranking further.

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, front-loaded with the read-only EN/ES scope, then the parameter convention, then the result-handling note. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 does the right work by explaining that expanded matches and browse suggestions are labeled, which is the key return-value nuance. Minor gaps remain around result count behavior tied to limit and what actorToken changes, but the core call path is complete.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including q's 'concise topic keywords, not a full instruction' guidance. The description restates the q convention in slightly different words but adds nothing about limit or actorToken, so it sits at the schema-backed 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 names a specific verb and resource ('keyword search' over memory) and adds the scope qualifiers 'read-only' and 'EN/ES'. It does not explicitly contrast with open_memory_work or continue_memory, but an agent can tell this is the lookup entry point because results are meant to be followed by read_entry.

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 actionable usage direction: put short topic keywords in q and follow up with read_entry to read results. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over siblings like open_memory_work or continue_memory, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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