Search your memory

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: case-insensitivity and the return shape (matching lines with file and line number). It omits the default value or effect of the 'limit' cap (max 200).

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 tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the return format second; no filler.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search with no output schema; the description covers search semantics and the return shape, leaving only the 'limit' behavior unexplained.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that 'query' is matched case-insensitively as text, which adds meaning, but says nothing about 'limit' or what happens when results are capped.

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 and resource: 'Case-insensitive text search across your memory files and journal.' This clearly separates it from memory_read/memory_list, which operate on whole files, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'text search across your memory files and journal' implies when to use it (locating content without knowing the file), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to memory_read for retrieving full files.

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