memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses result ordering ('cortex facts arrive AHEAD of entries'), deduping/contested semantics, low_confidence abstention guidance, superseded_by_text preference, and approximate rerank latency. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, behavior, then a tight parameter list with defaults and semantics. No filler or repetition.

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 12-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description covers when to call it, all parameter semantics, key behavioral caveats, and the return shape. Even though an output schema exists, the description still clarifies what callers receive and how to interpret ambiguous results.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description documents every parameter with practical semantics: query phrasing advice, top_k default, filter conjunction/disjunction behavior, min_score override, recency boost toggle, tri-state rerank/bm25 roles, and verbose vs explain implications. This fully compensates for the schema's bare names.

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 opens with 'Retrieve memories for a query — associative recall plus canonical facts', stating a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this search/recall tool from sibling tools by emphasizing associative recall plus canonical facts, not just direct lookup.

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?

'Call at task start or when context may apply' gives explicit timing guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.

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