Search full transcript history (cited or abstained)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's guarantee that every result is a citation (file, line span, sha256) verifiable via the underlying brain-mcp toolset — never synthesized or paraphrased — is a real behavioral contract beyond the safety hint. It does not mention ranking, ordering, or pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action; the citation guarantee follows immediately. Nothing is padded, though the trailing clause about the brain-mcp toolset is slightly redundant with the opening mention.

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 structure need not be explained, and the citation claim partially covers result semantics. However, the absence of sibling routing and of any documentation for agent/limit leaves an agent under-equipped for a 3-parameter tool in a crowded family.

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 carry parameter meaning and it does not. The agent filter and the limit (default 10) parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description; only the obvious 'query' string is inferable.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (full AI conversation history) and scopes it to sources like Claude Code and Codex via brain-mcp. It does not differentiate from siblings such as goldfish_recall or goldfish_context, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the family to pick.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions are given. With six siblings in the same family (recall, context, remember, reflect, persona, status) the description offers nothing about which situations select search over recall or context.

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