recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it discloses the token budget enforcement, the context-window-overflow protection, result truncation, and that results carry authority tiers and statuses. It does not state side-effect profile (read-only) or any rate/permission constraints, but the disclosed behavior goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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 core purpose in one sentence, then uses compact WHEN TO USE and RETURNS sections. Every sentence is functional; the only mildly extraneous detail is the FTS5/BM25 implementation name, which is cheap and still useful for understanding ranking behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by describing the return payload (matched entities, facts with authority tiers and statuses, token usage, truncation flag). Combined with the routing guidance, this is essentially complete; only the read-only/no-side-effect guarantee is left implicit.

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 depth, query, domain, and token_budget are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the token budget concept but adds no syntax, default semantics, or interaction details (e.g., how depth interacts with BM25) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) plus resource (memory observations and facts) and even the matching mechanism (SQLite FTS5 BM25). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'context' tool for structural/multi-hop queries, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Contains an explicit WHEN TO USE block with positive conditions (focused keyword search, retrieving specific facts, token-constrained situations) and a negative condition (DO NOT use for structural multi-hop relationships) that names the alternative tool. Nothing is left to inference.

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