search_finance_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It explains the scoring, filtering by min_score, capping at k, bounding by max_tokens, and reporting of dropped records. This is comprehensive for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second explains the process, third details the result. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior (ranking, filtering, capping) and result reporting. However, it omits explanation of 'db_path', 'kind', and 'context policy', and does not describe the return format. This leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by explaining the overall process (scored, filtered, capped) but does not elaborate on specific parameters like 'kind' or 'db_path'. It adds meaning beyond the schema but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of param descriptions.

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 retrieves relevant finance memories for a query, using a specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'finance memories'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_finance_memories' which lists all memories without ranking.

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 the tool: for retrieving memories under a context policy with similarity scoring and filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'list_finance_memories'.

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