search_presidential_memoranda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only describes the search scope and category, with no mention of result format, pagination behavior, search matching semantics, or any access/rate-limit considerations.

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 two sentences long with no filler. It front-loads the core action and follows with a brief, useful differentiation from executive orders; every sentence 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain return values, pagination, or how search terms combine. It currently only states what is searched and how memoranda relate to executive orders, leaving agents to guess response structure and behavior.

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?

All five parameters already have descriptive schema entries (term, year, president, page, per_page), and schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'by president, year, or keyword' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 begins with 'Search for presidential memoranda by president, year, or keyword,' using a specific verb and resource and naming the main filter dimensions. It also distinguishes memoranda from executive orders, which helps separate this tool from sibling tools like search_executive_orders.

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 gives useful context by saying memoranda are 'similar to executive orders but typically used for less formal directives,' which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving the guidance implicit rather than directive.

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