answer

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states the answer is 'grounded ONLY in the agent's stored memories (RAG)' and 'Returns the answer text plus the supporting memory sources.' It also implicitly discloses read-only behavior. However, it does not mention the kiosk_mode behavior (which is documented only in the parameter) or any auth requirements. Still, it provides substantial behavioral context, earning a 4.

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 sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return value. No redundant or extraneous content. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most critical information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the tool's essence: what it does, when to use it versus a sibling, and what it returns. The output schema handles return details, so no further explanation is needed. The tool is simple and the description is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The main description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what their individual descriptions already provide. It does not explain parameter relationships or provide examples, so it remains at baseline.

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 clearly states the verb ('ask a natural-language question') and resource ('agent's stored memories (RAG)'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool `recall` by specifying when to prefer this tool (synthesized answer vs ranked list). This meets the 5 criteria: specific verb+resource plus sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this over `recall` when you need a synthesized answer rather than a ranked list,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus a sibling. However, it does not exhaustively list alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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