shared_memory_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important scope fact that results span all agents, and 'search' implies a non-mutating read, but it omits result limits, pagination, ranking/score format, and any permission model.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded. Nothing needs to be cut or reordered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage on three parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing about filtering behavior and result size, which is too thin for a search entry point.

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% and all three parameters (query, top_k, agent_id) are bare titles. The description mentions relevance ranking, which hints at top_k behavior, but it says nothing about what query accepts or that agent_id can scope the search — notable given the description claims results come from all agents.

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 (search), resource (cross-agent shared memory), and ranking method (by relevance), which separates it from shared_memory_list and shared_memory_forget. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it does not reach the 5 tier.

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 versus shared_memory_list (enumeration) or vault_search (a nearby retrieval tool in the sibling list). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about when relevance search is preferable.

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