search_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that ranking is vector similarity, explains why first results can be misleading, and names the exact failure mode for rerank (RERANK_NOT_CONFIGURED). This goes well beyond a generic search description.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence earns its place: query phrasing, retrieval strategy, and the rerank pitfall. It is dense but not bloated, and the structure guides the agent from what to do to what to avoid.

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 moderate complexity, an output schema is present, and the description covers the key decision points: query formulation, retrieval volume, and rerank configuration. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly is missing.

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 only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates well for query and rerank semantics, and it implicitly motivates top_k through 'retrieving more than you need.' source_type is not addressed in the description, but the schema already provides an explanatory description and example for it.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('indexed memory'), and the outcome ('return the passages that match'). This clearly distinguishes search_memory from siblings like read_document and list_documents even without reading the schema.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: prefer a specific question, retrieve more than needed, and leave rerank off unless a profile is configured. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use search_memory, but the guidance is strong and actionable.

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