memory_world_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by exposing that results are similarity-based, include age-decayed confidence, a stale flag, and source provenance, and that stale entries should be re-verified. It stops short of describing any potential side effects, but 'Search' makes the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 compact and well-organized: it states the core function, gives a practical use case, describes key result metadata, and ends with the return shape. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary detail.

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 one required parameter and helpful defaults, the description is nearly complete. It covers the trigger condition, result shape, confidence decay, staleness handling, and citation fields. It could be even more complete by explicitly contrasting with sibling tools like memory_search, but this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents query, top_k, and verbose. The description adds useful context about result fields like source_url and source_quote, but it does not significantly deepen understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Search') and a clear resource ('current WORLD facts (sourced external knowledge)'). It distinguishes itself from generic memory search by emphasizing external world facts, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives a clear usage condition: use when a task depends on an external fact that training data may have stale. It provides context for when the tool is appropriate, but it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative.

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