memory_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations don't: a ticket key expands to return everything for that task and its epic. No return format or pagination/ranking behavior is described, but that is a minor gap for a read 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the special ticket-key rule, then the filter list. No filler and nothing buried.

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, the description gives enough on filters and special key handling to call the tool correctly, and annotations cover safety. It stops short of explaining result ordering, tag-search semantics, or how multiple filters combine, which an agent might want.

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 adds real semantics beyond the schema: the ticket-key expansion rule and the fact that searching spans tags, which is not a parameter at all – both help an agent reason about results rather than just field names.

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 specific verb (Search) and resource (memories) plus the fields searched (title, body, project, task, epic, tags). The ticket-key behavior sentence makes it clearly different from memory_add and memory_related, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Implies usage ('Search memories by...', 'Filters: project, type, task and epic') but never states when to prefer this over memory_related or when memory_add applies. It also omits that empty text returns most recent results – that detail lives only in the schema.

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