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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which covers safety and scope. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is semantic search, it uses OpenAI embeddings, and it has a documented rate limit of 20 req/min. No hidden side effects or contradictions.

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, each earning its place: purpose and endpoint, when-to-use with an example and sibling differentiation, and a rate-limit caveat. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains purpose, provides usage guidance, names the sibling that should be used instead in the other common case, and flags the rate limit. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but it gives helpful context about the query's intended nature ('specific questions') that complements the schema's 'Question or topic' description. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: 'Ad-hoc semantic search of memories', plus the exact endpoint (POST /search/semantic). It clearly distinguishes itself from recall by naming recall directly and contrasting the use case.

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 says when to use it: 'Use for specific questions during a task', and gives an example. It also names the alternative (recall) and the condition that selects that alternative ('builds the full startup context'), making tool selection unambiguous.

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