limitless_search_lifelogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the search is limited to recent logs, it searches both title and content, and it's keyword-based (not conceptual). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds distinct value: first states the core function, second provides critical usage restrictions, third clarifies scope limitation. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential 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 search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks behavioral details about authentication, rate limits, error handling, and response format. The absence of annotations means the description should compensate more for behavioral transparency, which it only partially addresses. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about 'recent' logs which relates to fetch_limit's scope, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('performs a simple text search') and resources ('within the title and content of *recent* logs/Pendant recordings'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for keyword searches only, unlike list/retrieve siblings like limitless_list_lifelogs_by_date or limitless_get_lifelog_by_id.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use ONLY for keywords, NOT for concepts like 'action items' or 'summaries'') and provides context about scope ('Searches only recent logs (limited scope)'). This gives clear guidance on appropriate vs. inappropriate use cases, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools.

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