Read or search curated memory notes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no note on result limits, ordering, or what happens on a name miss. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it needs to resolve, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only annotation covers safety. Still, with 0% parameter description coverage and an unresolved overlap with goldfish_search, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent.

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 explain the three parameters. It hints at 'name' and loosely at 'query' ('search/list'), but 'type' is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one of three parameters with zero semantics.

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 specific verbs (read, search, list) and a specific resource (curated memory notes), so the general purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling goldfish_search, and by using the word 'search' it actively blurs the boundary with that sibling.

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 implies two modes — lookup 'by name' vs 'search/list' — which gives some usage signal. But it never says when to prefer this tool over goldfish_search or goldfish_context, leaving a genuine ambiguity for an agent choosing among siblings.

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