memory_lesson_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It warns about polarity, explains that lessons describe their originating run rather than the current one, clarifies the re_verify flag for stale facts, and even documents the return shape. This is strong, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 description is dense but efficient: purpose, timing, interpretation caveats, and return format are each covered in a few sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and every sentence contributes useful guidance.

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 three parameters and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers when to call it, how to interpret results, the important re_verify caveat, and the returned entry fields. No critical operational gap is evident.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some operational meaning for the query parameter ('task at hand', 'described the way it would have been logged') but does not add meaning for top_k or verbose beyond their schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool searches learned lessons (procedural memory) by similarity to the task at hand. It is distinct enough from generic sibling searches by naming the specific resource type, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion criteria.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call at the START of a task' and explains what the search surfaces (what worked, what to avoid, user corrections). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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