search_memos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does add meaningful context: it specifies that query matches multiple fields and is keyword-oriented, not an exact ID lookup. It omits details like case sensitivity or partial-match semantics, but for a read-only search tool the field scope is the key behavior.

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?

The entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence that names the action, target, and applicable fields with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description provides the core semantic needed to invoke it correctly. Missing pieces (match semantics, sibling routing) are relatively minor or already penalized in the usage dimension, so the definition is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must give meaning to the single query parameter. It does so by defining query as a keyword and enumerating the fields searched, which compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('memos') with an exact scope: matches across title, content, tags, and category. This clearly conveys the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memos or get_memo.

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 keyword-search use case is implied, but the description never explicitly positions it against siblings such as list_memos (for unfiltered listing) or get_memo (for retrieving one memo). There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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