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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required OAuth-style scope, which is useful. It omits anything about result ordering, whether results are truncated by limit, or the performance/breadth cost of an unfiltered search.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability before the permission constraint, with no filler. The brevity is close to under-specification, but nothing stated is wasted.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema and sub-50% schema description coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about the return shape (list vs paginated envelope), default unfiltered behavior, and how the include_content/limit cap actually manifests. The safety profile is covered by annotations, but the query semantics are not.

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?

With only 43% schema coverage, the description does useful work by naming the four filter dimensions that map to kind, tags, key_prefix and query. However, it says nothing about how those filters interact (AND vs OR), what limit does, or how include_content's interaction with limit affects the call.

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 ('search') plus the resource ('a workspace') and enumerates the four search modes (full-text, tag, prefix, kind). It's clearly a query operation, but it never names retrieve_memory or save_memory to draw the boundary between searching for a memory and fetching one by key.

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 only guidance is a permission prerequisite ('Requires scope memory:read'), which is not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over retrieve_memory, whether the modes can be combined, or what happens when no filters are supplied (i.e., whether it returns everything in the workspace).

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