recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two useful traits: results are short previews ranked by score, and semantic matching degrades if the embedding model is absent. It does not cover permissions, pagination, or what happens to superseded memories by default, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a search tool.

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 tight sentences with no waste: purpose and conditional caveat first, then the sibling redirect. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

The output schema exists, so not explaining return values is fine, and the preview-versus-full-text note is a helpful pointer. However, for a five-parameter search tool with zero schema documentation, the definition leaves the filtering and superseded-control semantics entirely unexplained.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Nothing is said about kind, project, limit, or the non-obvious include_superseded flag; only the query's keyword/semantic duality is implied by 'keywords and meaning'.

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 ('Search memories') plus the retrieval modes ('by keywords and meaning'), and explicitly routes full-text retrieval to the sibling get_memory. It does not differentiate from other siblings like list_recent or review, so it stops short of a 5.

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 an explicit alternative with its selecting condition: use this for previews, use get_memory for full text. It also flags the prerequisite that semantic search works only 'when the embedding model is installed', which effectively tells the agent when to expect keyword-only behavior, though no guidance is offered on choosing between this and list_recent.

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