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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the scope of the memory store and its long-term nature; it says nothing about ranking behavior, despite minScore implying similarity scoring, or about how results are ordered. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, so this is adequate but thin.

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 with zero filler; the resource scope is front-loaded and the usage trigger follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with a fully documented four-parameter schema, rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is searched and when to invoke it. The only remaining gap is disambiguation from memory_get and memory_save, which the description leaves to inference.

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 100% and every parameter carries a description plus a default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's enumeration of memory content types loosely hints at what memoryType distinguishes (daily vs curated), but never maps that vocabulary to the enum values. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search your long-term memory') and enumerates the content types stored there (facts, decisions, preferences, commitments), which goes beyond restating the name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from memory_get and memory_save by being a query-based lookup, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use before answering questions about past context' gives a concrete trigger condition for invocation, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of when-not-to-use guidance or of routing the agent to memory_get for direct retrieval versus this similarity search.

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