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

Adds useful context beyond the readOnly and idempotent hints by stating that search results are annotated with provenance, stale, and conflict status. It doesn't cover pagination or default filtering, but the safety profile is already established by annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes, and the core action and distinctive output characteristics are conveyed efficiently.

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 rich schema, output schema, and safety annotations, this description is largely sufficient for selection and invocation. It lacks explicit exclusions or elaboration of 'annotate,' but the structured fields carry much of the remaining burden.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clear action and resource: 'Search memories' and adds that results carry provenance, stale, and conflict annotations. This differentiates it from write/validation siblings like remember, forget, and validate_memory, though the verb 'annotate' is slightly ambiguous and could be misread as a mutation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The use case is implied by the name and description—searching memories—but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over validate_memory or how workspace/scope affect selection.

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