memory_search_observations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses a sorting behavior ('sorted by recency') and implies a read-only operation through 'Returns', but it omits details like matching semantics (exact vs. fuzzy), case sensitivity, pagination behavior, or any potential side effects. The description is minimally transparent but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity, the schema fully documents parameters, and the description covers purpose and sorting. While no output schema exists, the description sufficiently indicates what is returned (matching observations). It does not describe the observation structure, but that is likely known from context. Overall, it is complete enough for a straightforward search tool.

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 does not add meaning beyond the schema: 'keyword match' echoes the query description, and the limit parameter is not mentioned. No additional value is provided, so the score remains at the baseline.

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 action ('Search observations by keyword') and the resource ('observations'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_get_observation (which likely retrieves a single observation by ID). It also adds a specific behavioral detail (sorted by recency), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 searching but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools like memory_get_observation or memory_find_related suggest potential overlap, but no exclusionary guidance is provided. This is a clear context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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