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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering, conflict handling via superseded_by, and per-hit timing, but omits whether this is read-only, how pagination works despite offset/top_k, what filters like source/mode do, and what the result shape is.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, but it is too compressed for a 9-parameter search tool. Fragments like 'Prefer turn' and 'time per hit' are cryptic rather than efficient, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do much more. It supplies some behavioral context but leaves most parameter behavior and result interpretation undocumented.

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% and the description explains none of the 9 parameters. Terms like 'newest first' and 'time per hit' do not map clearly to query, mode, lines, since, until, top_k, offset, source, or exclude_imports.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search memory') and adds useful scope details: newest-first ordering, superseded_by marking for conflicting facts, and per-hit timing. It also distinguishes itself from memory_event by routing full-text retrieval there, though the sibling routing is compressed.

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?

It names alternatives ('Prefer turn', 'Full text: memory_event') but gives no explicit conditions for when to choose this tool over turn or memory_event. The guidance is implied rather than actionable, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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