Search AI Coach memos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so read-only is covered. The description adds behavioral details: returns a snippet around the hit, includes the group each memo belongs to, and specifies case-insensitive substring matching. It also clarifies the group parameter's empty-string meaning, which is valuable beyond the schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose and return format; the second explains the group parameter. It is front-loaded with the key action and ends with read-only. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return fields. It covers the essential usage: search behavior, group filtering, and result content (snippet and group). Combined with annotations (read-only) and full schema documentation, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% — all four parameters have detailed descriptions. The description adds the group empty-string behavior, but the schema already states exactly that. The query behavior (case-insensitive substring) is also in the schema. The description adds minimal new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (search) and the resource (user's AI Coach memos) with specific detail: searches by title and body text, case-insensitive substring, and returns matching memos with a snippet and group. It is distinct from siblings like list_ai_coach_notes (which lists without search) and read_ai_coach_note (which reads a specific memo).

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to search memos by content, optionally within a group or ungrouped. It explains the group parameter semantics thoroughly. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over listing or reading when searching is needed.

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