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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context: an exact DB query rather than semantic search, sub-50ms latency, a default limit of 50, and the conditional requirement that session_history needs session_id. Gaps remain on pagination (offset) and identity/auth parameters (api_key, user_id), which are never mentioned.

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?

Front-loaded with the core distinction before the scenario list, and the WHEN TO USE bullets are scannable with zero filler. The trailing Args block partially duplicates the schema but is justified because the schema has no field descriptions.

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 17-parameter, multi-mode lookup with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to pick a type and the obvious filters, and the per-type examples effectively teach the invocation pattern. It stops short of explaining return shape or the purpose of the remaining ten parameters, which leaves real risk of misuse on offset/include_completed.

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, and it covers the most important ones: type with its full value list (the schema just says 'string' with no enum), query, category, status, priority, session_id, and limit. However it leaves ten of seventeen parameters undocumented (days, level, offset, api_key, user_id, max_cards, max_tasks, memory_id, agent_role, include_completed), including pagination and completion filtering.

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 ('get by type', 'Fast DB lookup') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling awareness_recall ('search by meaning'). An agent can choose between the two without opening either 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?

Provides an explicit WHEN TO USE block with seven concrete type-driven scenarios (tasks, knowledge, risks, session_history, handoff, skills, context) plus the negative case for awareness_recall. This is close to a model routing table.

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