search_document_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete behavioral trait that the result is capped at 10 bounded section summaries, but it does not explain authentication, rate limits, or the meaning of 'page-cited' beyond surface-level wording.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and output characteristics, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and multiple sibling tools. It does not explain how record_id scopes the search, when to use this over 'search' or 'search_insights', or what qualifies as a 'section summary'. The presence of an output schema does not offset the lack of parameter and usage context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It only implies the 'query' parameter and vaguely references the output limit; it entirely omits the role of 'record_id' and the precise semantics of 'limit'. This leaves three parameters under-explained.

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 a specific action ('Search') and a specific resource ('detailed page-cited memories'), and further narrows the output to 'bounded section summaries.' This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like 'search' and 'search_insights' by focusing on document memory and page citations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search', 'search_insights', or 'get_document_memory.' The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions or situations where it should be preferred.

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