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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the snippets' shape (date, program, session) and an access-boundary guarantee ('never returns other people's sessions'), plus the consent/upload precondition.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then trigger conditions, then guarantees — a sensible ordering. It is one dense paragraph and the parenthetical example phrases are in Russian only, but they earn their place by giving the agent concrete linguistic triggers.

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 values need no explanation, and the description still summarizes the snippet fields. Scope, privacy boundary, and preconditions are all covered; only the matching semantics of 'query' remain unspecified.

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% (both query and limit are documented, including the 1-20 range), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no query-syntax detail — notably it never says whether matching is keyword-based or semantic, which is the one thing the schema leaves ambiguous.

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 the user's earlier AI sessions (Claude Code, Codex) uploaded to MMW'), scopes the corpus explicitly, and implicitly separates itself from the sibling 'search' (memories) and '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 explicit trigger conditions with illustrative user phrasings and a fallback rule ('when you need context that is not in memories'), which routes the agent to the memories tool when appropriate. Both when-to-use and the alternative condition are stated.

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