Search revenue memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come from things 'Andru has saved,' implying a persisted, accumulated store rather than a live lookup, which is useful context. It says nothing about result volume, ordering, or the relationship to memory history, so it stays at a baseline 3.

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 'Learning from every deal:' preamble is marketing framing that does not help tool selection and delays the actual trigger phrase. The run-on sentence listing content types is dense but does convey information; one editorial pass would remove the fluff and front-load the 'use when' clause.

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?

With zero required parameters, no output schema, and full schema descriptions, the definition covers the trigger and the filterable axes adequately. What is missing is any disambiguation from get_memory_history and any hint about what a result looks like, which matters for a search tool with an open-ended result set.

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% and the enum values carry their own descriptions (including the episodic/semantic/procedural gloss), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Filter by category, key pattern or memory type' merely restates the three parameter names and adds no syntax or combination guidance beyond 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 enumerates the resource contents clearly (metrics, deal patterns, account history, decisions, habits Andru has saved), which tells the agent what is being retrieved. However, it never states the verb directly ('search' only appears in the title) and never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_memory_history, which sounds nearly identical in purpose.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'use this when the person asks what they decided, learned or recorded before.' That is a clear usage condition an agent can pattern-match against. It stops short of exclusions or naming the alternative (get_memory_history) that would make the routing decision unambiguous.

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