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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses a data-overlap precondition (recent memories are already in the conversation block, so results may be redundant), but says nothing about return format, result count, or pagination for a search operation.

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 sentences, zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded, and the usage conditions follow immediately. Every clause earns its place by either defining the tool or routing the agent correctly.

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 2-parameter read-only search tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotations, the definition covers purpose, invocation conditions, and the interaction with the ambient team_memory block. It lacks any hint about result shape or volume, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in structured form. The description adds only an implicit sense of 'query = topic' and 'property = scope' and no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so 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 with clear scope: 'Search this property's saved team memories.' The resource ('team memories') implicitly distinguishes it from save-memory (write) and search-property-knowledge, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 two explicit, concrete conditions for when to invoke: when the <team_memory> block says older memories are not shown, or when the needed topic is absent from the block. An agent knows exactly when this tool is the right call versus relying on ambient context.

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