search

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: no matching semantics, no result limits, no pagination or ordering behavior for what is described as a list-returning 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?

One sentence with no padding and the purpose is front-loaded, which is good. But the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being efficient density, so it lands at minimum viable.

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?

A search tool with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and undifferentiated siblings needs more than one generic sentence. Return shape, matching behavior, and the choice between this tool and ask/read are all missing.

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% and the single 'query' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and description. The description does not indicate query syntax, whether it is free text or structured, or how matching is performed, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a verb (search) and a resource (this memory) with a hint at the result ('matching items'), but 'this memory' is undefined and the definition never distinguishes itself from siblings like ask or read. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is keyword lookup, semantic retrieval, or a different access pattern.

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, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives despite five plausible sibling tools (ask, read, links, propose, remember). The agent is left to infer entirely from the verb.

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