Keyword search across keys and values

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the underlying search mechanism (FTS5 with bm25 ranking, stemming, etc.), the fallback to LIKE substring scan, and the case-insensitive behavior. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so the description's behavioral details are supplementary.

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 efficient, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by technical details and output behavior. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite covering the search algorithm and fallback, the description omits details about the snippet format and whether the response includes keys, values, or tags. With no output schema, this gap affects completeness. However, the description is adequate for a search tool given the annotations.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines parameters. The description enriches understanding by explaining how the query parameter is processed (e.g., prefix matching, accent-insensitive), and clarifies the limit parameter's role in top N results with snippet, aiding the agent in parameter selection.

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 'Full-text search across keys, values AND tags', directly specifying the action and resource. The technical details about FTS5 and ranking further clarify the tool's purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_get and memory_list.

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 implies usage for keyword-based search, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like memory_get or memory_list. It does not state when not to use it or provide alternatives, so guidance is only implicit.

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