Enhanced Knowledge Graph Memory Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the date range requirement, it doesn't describe what 'search' entails—whether it returns a list, paginated results, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps about how the tool actually operates.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key parameter requirement. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and follows with an important constraint.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a key parameter constraint but lacks details about return values, error handling, or how it differs from other search tools. Without annotations or output schema, the agent would need to infer much about the tool's behavior.

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%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that filtering by entity type and tags is optional, but this is already implied by the schema's optional parameters. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage examples, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches entities within a date range with optional filtering by entity type and tags. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'entities' with scope 'within a date range', making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_nodes', 'search_auto', or 'boolean_search', which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage guidance by stating 'At least one of startDate or endDate should be provided', which helps the agent understand parameter requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative search tools like 'search_nodes' or 'boolean_search', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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