recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: morphology-aware matching (inflection, compound word parts), preview-by-default payload shape, superseded entries hidden unless mit_veraltet, and the notable edge case that hits outside the tag filter are excluded but the best out-of-scope match is named in a last line. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior before the Args block, and every parameter note is substantive rather than filler. It is longer than typical, and a few rationales (e.g. the measured limit explanation) could be tightened, but nothing is redundant with structured fields given the 0% schema coverage.

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 no explanation, and the description still clarifies the preview vs. full-text distinction. Combined with filter semantics, defaults, morphology behavior, and the follow-up tool handoff, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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, and it documents all six parameters: FTS5 syntax for query, the measured rationale behind the limit default of 8, enumerated art values with their exclusion of verlauf by default, OR-combining and sub-tag inclusion semantics for marke, and defaults for voll and mit_veraltet. This goes well beyond what the bare schema conveys.

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+resource (full-text search over memory) with result ordering, and implicitly defines its niche against siblings by routing full-text retrieval to zeige() and tag discovery to themen(). An agent can distinguish 'find' from 'fetch', 'list tags', and 'store' without opening any schema, since comments and code snippets (>500 chars) are truncated regardless of position.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance including the alternative path: use preview first, then zeige("376,481") for interesting hits, or set voll=True up front when the question is narrow. It also states when-not conditions through defaults (verlauf excluded so the chronicle doesn't drown out specific searches), which is genuine selection guidance rather than vague context.

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