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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: search scope (all memories), which fields are matched (keys AND values), and a result cap ('up to 10 results'). It omits case sensitivity, substring vs exact matching, and return shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with a clear scope label and ending on the differentiating comparison. Efficient overall, though the 'VAULT SEARCH:' caps label is mild decoration rather than information.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies scope, matching behavior, and a result limit. It stops short of describing the shape of each returned result (key only vs key+value), which is the one gap an agent might hit.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only marginal meaning ('by keyword', matched against keys and values) beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (stored memories) with scope ('across ALL your stored memories') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling agent_memory by contrasting the discovery model with exact-key lookup. An agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names agent_memory as the alternative and gives the selecting condition ('where you need to know the exact key... this lets you discover what you've stored'). Clear when-to-use guidance, though it omits the sibling memory_list and does not spell out the inverse case (use agent_memory when the key is known).

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