memory_query_structured

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: exact/deterministic, filters currently-valid top-level memories, and tags use AND logic. No contradictions.

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 dense sentence that is information-rich and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly restructured for readability, but it remains clear and concise.

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?

No output schema is present, and the description does not explain the return format (e.g., a list of memory objects with selected fields). It mentions field projection but doesn't clarify what fields are available or the structure of results. This leaves some ambiguity 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 coverage is only 20% (tags and created_after/before have descriptions). The description enumerates filter fields like scope, namespace, department, etc. but doesn't explain their semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides. It adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for low coverage.

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 the tool performs 'Structured query over memory PROPERTIES' with specific capabilities: filter, sort, paginate, and project. It distinguishes itself from fuzzy memory_search, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says it is 'exact, deterministic retrieval that complements fuzzy memory_search' and provides a concrete example: 'use it for "all decision memories in namespace=edc with importance>0.7, newest first"'. This gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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