mymemory_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that matching is case-insensitive, substring-based, limited to active entries (not inactive/deleted), and searches both text and kind fields. It also states the return shape ({ query, count, matches }). This is solid behavioral disclosure for a read/search tool, though it doesn't mention pagination or match limits which could matter for large vaults.

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 wasted words. Every clause adds value: scope (user's vault), function (search for word/phrase), match semantics (case-insensitive substring), search surface (text and kind), filter (active entries), and return shape. Perfectly front-loaded with the most important info first.

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 simple 1-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and clear return description, this is nearly complete. The only gap is no mention of result limits or pagination behavior for large match sets, and no explicit output schema. But given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate to allow correct invocation. Minor deduction for the missing result-limit detail.

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% - the single query parameter is fully documented in the schema with description and examples. The description adds the case-insensitive substring detail and the scope (active entries, text and kind fields), which enhances the schema. This lands the baseline at 3 since the schema already does the heavy lifting, and the description adds modest enrichment.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource: 'Search the user's MyMemory vault for a word or phrase.' It clearly states the matching behavior (case-insensitive substring) and scope ('active entries (text and kind)'). This distinguishes it from siblings mymemory_get_context and mymemory_propose, which presumably retrieve context or propose additions rather than search.

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?

The description explains the matching semantics (case-insensitive substring over active entries, both text and kind fields) which gives clear context on what the search will return. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the scope restriction to 'active entries' and the clear verb distinguishes usage from siblings. Slight deduction for no explicit exclusion guidance.

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