memory_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure and does a good job explaining the vector-first keyword-fallback behavior. It also clarifies the meaning of degraded=true and degrade_reason, which are important operational states, though it does not discuss permissions or side effects.

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 three tight sentences with no waste, and the core purpose and fallback behavior are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 fully explained, and the description still helpfully explains degraded and degrade_reason semantics. For a read-only search tool, this is largely complete, though it leaves implicit that the operation has no side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only repeats the empty-query behavior already stated in the query parameter description, adding no new parameter-level semantics.

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 and resource: 'Search memories', and adds implementation context with 'vector search first and keyword fallback'. It is clearly distinct from siblings like memory_add and memory_delete, though it does not explicitly name those siblings for routing.

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 clear usage context: it explains the fallback order and notes that 'An empty query lists recent memories'. There are no competing search tools among the siblings, so explicit alternative routing is less necessary, but exclusions and prerequisites are not stated.

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