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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: result ranking (active first, superseded last) and character-based trimming to `max_chars`. It omits edge behavior (empty results, interaction of `limit` with trimming, permission/rate considerations), keeping it below top marks.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result semantics, then filters, then the recency case, then follow-ups. Dense but nearly every clause carries distinct information; minor density cost from the inline enum list.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described, and the description supplies the ranking/trimming behavior an agent needs. For an 8-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, only `limit` semantics and no-match behavior are left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains `query` semantics (keywords, omission = recent entries), `max_chars` trimming, filter params (status, tags, files), and supplies enum values for `kind` (decision|attempt|task|note) that the schema itself lacks. It leaves `limit` and `project` undocumented, so it is not fully compensating.

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verb+resource ('Search the project's memory') and adds scope detail: returns a few ranked entries, active before superseded, trimmed to max_chars. It never explicitly names what it is NOT (e.g. a sibling retrieval tool), so sibling differentiation is only implied by the follow-up mention of update/remember.

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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: use 2-5 specific keywords, omit `query` to get the most recent entries, and follow up with update() or remember(). It does not spell out when-not-to-call or an alternative search path, but the practical context is clear and actionable.

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