search_memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior ('accent-insensitive', empty-query fallback), but says nothing about limit/pagination behavior or what a space filter does, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation leads and the two useful behavioral facts follow. It does not sprawl, though the formatting is fragmentary.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and its provenance note is a nice complement. But for a 3-parameter search tool with zero schema documentation, the unspecified limit and space parameters leave real gaps in an agent's ability to call it 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 0% for three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the query parameter's edge case (empty = most recent results), but 'limit' and especially 'space' are left completely undefined, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('full-text search over the user's durable memories') plus a qualifier (accent-insensitive) that scopes the search behavior. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_memory or get_recent_context, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 'Empty query = most recent' clause implies one usage mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_memory (single lookup) or get_recent_context (recency browsing). The agent must infer which sibling to pick for a given intent.

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