gateway_memory_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the verb 'Search' aligns with that. The description adds some behavioral context by clarifying what data is searched (short/medium Postgres memory, optionally sourced long-term knowledge), but it does not disclose other traits like how sources are included, ordering, or limits. With the annotation covering safety, this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is concise without being overly terse, though a bit more detail would not hurt clarity.

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 tool with 7 parametersasi and an output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to construct a query, what 'source-backed long-term knowledge' means in practice, or how defaults affect results. An agent would need to inspect the schema and guess or rely on sibling names to use this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 7 parameters. It hints at 'short/medium' (matching tiers_json) and 'optionally source-backed' (matching include_sources), but does not explain the meaning or acceptable values of query, scope, subject, limit, include_yonote, or the exact format of tiers_json. The parameter names are suggestive but not documented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('short/medium Postgres memory' and 'optionally source-backed long-term knowledge'). It gives a clear sense of scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like gateway_memory_sources_search or gateway_knowledge_search, leaving some ambiguity about which exact store is being queried.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools. It implies it is the default memory search by mentioning 'short/medium' tiersable and optional sources, but does not state exclusions or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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