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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds two genuinely non-obvious traits: results are unverified content and polling should be no faster than once per minute. That rate-limit guidance is real operational value the schema cannot express. It stops short of describing return shape or how filtering combines.

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 core action, with no filler. Each sentence (what it searches, trust caveat, polling limit) carries distinct 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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum sketch what a 'Shared Memory summary' result contains and how the filters combine. Instead it leaves the entire parameter surface and the return shape undocumented for an agent deciding how to call it.

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?

All 8 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing — no explanation of tag, since vs before, outcome, question_status, or parent_id. A few names (query, limit) are self-evident, but the filter semantics and their interaction are entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ('Search live public Shared Memory summaries') plus a scope qualifier ('live public'), which is far more than a tautology. It does not name or contrast with siblings like search_content or read_memory, so an agent must infer which corpus this actually covers.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_content, read_memory, or read_memory_context, and no prerequisites. The only constraints given are trust and rate-limit caveats, which are behavioral rather than selection guidance.

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