memory_search_candidates

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns candidates and gives a downstream instruction, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, potential side effects, rate limits, or what the 'candidates' represent besides being lexical.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a useful workflow tip, though it could be considered a usage guideline rather than purpose. No wasted words.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what 'search candidates' are, how the parameters affect results, or what the output contains beyond what the schema might show. It lacks the context needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's role in the broader workflow.

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 the description provides no parameter explanations. It does not clarify the meaning of 'query', 'top_k', 'status', or 'mode' beyond what the schema already shows (e.g., mode=const lexical). The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('lexical search candidates'), clearly indicating the tool's output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like memory_fetch_evidence, relying instead on the 'candidates' qualifier to imply a difference.

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 phrase 'Fetch original evidence before concluding' implies a workflow where this tool provides initial candidates and evidence should be fetched separately, but it does not name the alternative tool or provide explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance.

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