Memory recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral detail: matching is by substring rather than semantic or exact match. This is useful but does not go further, such as explaining ordering, deduplication, or behavior with no results. No contradiction with 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 a single, tightly worded phrase with no fluff or redundancy. Every token ('substring', 'recall', 'entities', 'observations', 'relations') carries meaning, making it an example of efficient structure.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps: no usage scenario, no behavior around max_results, and no clarification of what 'entities, observations and relations' refer to in practice. The existing output schema covers return shape, so the missing bits are selection and parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. 'Substring recall' implies the query is a substring to search for, which adds some meaning to `query`. However, `max_results` is never addressed, and the description does not clarify expected query format, scope, or limits. The compensation is only partial.

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 operation ('substring recall') over a specific resource ('entities, observations and relations'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from generic search tools like web_search and wiki_search by scoping to memory-domain data, and from sibling memory tools by focusing on retrieval rather than store/forget.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention memory_store, memory_forget, web_search, or any condition for selection. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and the single line of description.

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