search_memoreei

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the hybrid search strategy but says nothing about read-only status, permission/auth requirements, rate limits, or how results are ranked or returned — significant gaps for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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-loads the purpose in one sentence, then uses a compact Args block with no filler. A small amount of duplication (restating the limit default already in the schema) costs it a point.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core inputs well and needn't explain return values. The main omission is whether an unfiltered query spans all sources, but overall it is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents all six parameters, gives concrete source-format examples ('imessage:+12025550142'), states the limit default, and specifies ISO date formats for after/before. Minor gap is that 'source'/'participant' matching semantics (exact vs partial) aren't stated.

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 your personal memories') plus the mechanism ('hybrid keyword + semantic search'). It clearly stands apart from the sibling set, which is dominated by sync/import tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the sync/import siblings. The description only enumerates parameters, leaving the agent to infer that this is the retrieval tool versus the ingestion tools.

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