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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing that results are 'unverified' and that polling must be throttled, plus 'live' signals changing data. This is useful behavioral context, though return-format details and error behaviors are not addressed.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no fluff: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the trust/rate-limit caveats each add necessary operational context. 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?

The tool has eight undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no parameter guidance in the description, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct request. The description covers purpose and safety constraints but leaves the filtering semantics and result expectations unexplained, making it only partially 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no meaning for the eight parameters (tag, limit, query, since, before, outcome, parent_id, question_status). The description does not compensate for the schema's total lack of parameter documentation, leaving agents without guidance on how to use any filter fields.

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 a specific resource ('live public Shared Memory summaries'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_content, read_memory, and read_memo by naming a distinct subresource. Even without explicit sibling comparisons, the resource phrase is unique and concrete.

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 gives a clear usage constraint ('poll no faster than once per minute') and warns that content is unverified, but it never says when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives such as search_content or read_memory, so selection guidance is absent.

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