memo_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the search behavior, channel filtering, the default channel fallback, and the return format (JSON). While it does not explicitly state that it is a non-destructive read operation, the term 'searches' implies this. It also does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action ('Searches for memos'). Every sentence provides useful information—what it does, its key capabilities, the default channel behavior, and the return format—without any redundancy or fluff.

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 simple search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the main functionality, channel defaulting, and return format. It could benefit from mentioning how limit works or suggested use cases relative to sibling tools, but these gaps are not critical given the schema coverage.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, channelIds), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, only minimally referencing content search and channel filtering. Since the schema already documents all parameters, the baseline 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's purpose: 'Searches for memos in the database' with specific capabilities like content-based search and channel filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as memo_create, memo_get, and memo_list, which handle creation, retrieval, and listing respectively.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for searching memos by content and optionally filtering by channel. It also notes the default behavior of using the currently active channel, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as when listing all memos without a query.

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