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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it discloses the read scope ('only project lines of active members are read') and a non-obvious side effect ('every search is audited and visible to members'). It also specifies the return token format and citation convention. It omits whether a missing/invalid key errors out or how access to the key is obtained.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, followed by the output/citation format. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return token shape and citation rule, which is the most valuable thing it could add. But it is silent on the `limit` parameter and on how the required project key is supplied or what happens when it is absent, leaving real gaps for a search tool.

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% for both parameters. The description explains nothing about the required `query` (matching behavior, syntax) and never mentions `limit` (default 8), so an agent gets no signal about result-size control. The 'project key' it does discuss is not even an input parameter here, leaving the actual parameters undocumented everywhere.

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+resource: 'Search the joint project memory', which is distinguishable from the generic memory_search and cube_search siblings by the 'joint project' scope. It does not explicitly name the sibling it supersedes, but the resource qualifier makes the domain clear.

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 parenthetical '(only with a project key)' gives a hard prerequisite, which is useful gating guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over memory_search, cube_search, or joint_project, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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