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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns excerpts and canonical URLs, and it searches published content only. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens with empty results, which would add more value.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the scope, the second states the return format and routes to the sibling for full text. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description covers the core purpose, return format, and the alternative for full text. It lacks explicit pagination details, but the schema already defines limit/offset with defaults and maximums, so the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter semantics. The description mentions 'published' content and 'excerpts and canonical URLs' which adds some context, but it doesn't explain the 'kind' enum values, the meaning of 'limit'/'offset' pagination, or the 'query' parameter beyond what the schema already shows. The description adds minimal value over the raw 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('all published memos, biography, creations, specialties, products and API guides'), and distinguishes itself from read_content by noting it returns excerpts and canonical URLs rather than complete text. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling read_content tool.

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 description explicitly mentions read_content as the alternative for complete text, giving clear context on when to use this tool vs that sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use search_memories or other sibling search tools, so it's not a full when/when-not guide.

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