memory_world_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries transparency. It discloses that entries carry age-decayed effective_confidence, a stale flag, source_url and source_quote for citation, and explains the verbose=True behavior for full provenance metadata. It also gives the return structure. This is rich behavioral context 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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then result fields and parameter behavior, and finally the return type. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what the results contain, and how to get more detail. It also differentiates itself from memory_search and other siblings on the WORLD fact domain, making it self-sufficient.

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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics to 'verbose' by explaining that verbose=True returns full provenance metadata and default entries are compact. Query and top_k are self-explanatory from their names and the search context, though not explicitly detailed. This is decent compensation for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 resource ('current WORLD facts (sourced external knowledge)') with a clear scope ('by similarity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search and document_search by emphasizing external knowledge and the WORLD fact domain.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when a task turns on an external fact your training data may have stale.' It provides contextual guidance about re-verifying stale entries but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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