search_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine auth requirement – private memories need the profile owner token – which is real value beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about how matches are computed (semantic vs. substring), pagination, default result cap, or what an unauthorized search returns.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the access constraint second. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin: it omits how the query string is interpreted, what the results look like, and how limit affects them. The auth note is the only substantive addition.

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 explain all four parameters. It conveys the meaning of profile (local scope) and owner_token (needed only for private memories), but query and limit – including the default of 10 and max of 50 – go entirely unaddressed.

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 names a specific verb (“search”) and resource (“memories”) and scopes it to “a local profile,” which implicitly separates it from public-oriented siblings like discover_public_memories and from profile-management tools like list_memory_profiles. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from any named sibling, so it is clear but not fully self-locating.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over list_memory_profiles, discover_public_memories, or the save/delete tools, nor any exclusion. The only conditional guidance is the auth prerequisite for private memories, which is about permission rather than tool selection.

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