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 fields. The description's genuine addition is the data scope — conversations across four named domains plus agent-written notes — which tells the agent what is and is not in the index. It says nothing about result shape, ranking, or cost, leaving the remaining behavioral picture thin against an already-complete annotation set.

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, and the highest-value information (what corpus, semantic matching) is front-loaded before the usage instruction. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the definition covers what is searched and when to call it, which is most of what an agent needs. The notable gap is the return shape — whether results are snippets, full conversations, or note objects — which an agent must discover empirically since no output schema exists.

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 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' are documented in the schema, including the default of 8 and the max of 12. The description reinforces that queries are natural-language and meaning-based, but adds no syntax, phrasing, or limit guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 AIfa memory') and adds the crucial qualifier 'by meaning', which signals semantic rather than chronological lookup. It also enumerates the corpus (four domains plus agent-saved notes), so the agent knows exactly what is being searched. It never names a sibling such as memory_recent or memory_about, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a moment of use: 'at the start of a task to recover what is already known about the user, their projects and decisions.' That is a clear, actionable trigger. It stops short of when-not-to-use or naming alternatives like memory_recent for time-ordered recall, so it is not a full routing rule.

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