memory_search

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing the two-call pattern and the existence of a shared memory namespace, which the agent would not know from annotations alone.

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 deliver the core purpose and the critical usage pattern with no filler. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded, and every clause contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple, read-only search tool, the description combined with the well-documented schema and safety annotations covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly. The only notable behavior — the two-call pattern — is explicitly included.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying the exact agent_id values to use ('your agent_id' and '__shared__') and clarifying that queries are natural-language matches for stored facts, adding real semantic value.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('GrayMatter memory') with a clear scope ('relevant facts'). It is readily distinguishable from sibling memory tools like memory_add and memory_reflect.

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 explicit, actionable usage instructions: call once for the current agent_id, then again with agent_id '__shared__' for user-level preferences. This tells the agent exactly how to invoke the tool effectively.

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