Recall past experience

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the return shape ('ranked hits with fix, avoid-list and confidence') and the matching mechanism ('Exact error text in signals enables deterministic matching; semantic + lexical search catches near matches'). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes: purpose, when to call, return content, input strategy, and read-only nature. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return expectations, matching behavior, and invocation timing. The input schema handles parameter details, and annotations cover side-effect safety, making the description complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description compensates by explaining the role of the 'signals' parameter in achieving deterministic matching and near-match search, which adds semantic meaning not present in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether this problem (or a similar one) has been solved before.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like record, forget, and amend, and the 'Read-only' tag further separates it from mutation tools.

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 instruction 'Call BEFORE investigating' provides explicit timing for when to use the tool, and the description of deterministic vs. near-match signals gives practical input guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough.

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