Search stored preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no credit is needed for read-only safety. The description adds useful behavioral detail that results are 'ranked by relevance and how binding they are', going beyond the schema. However, the concept of 'binding' is vague and not elaborated, and behavior like pagination or default limits is not disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action and resource, then adds a distinguishing detail on ranking. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing beyond the inherent 'binding' term.

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?

With four parameters and no output schema, the description needs to explain what results look like, what 'scope' and 'agent' mean, and how 'binding' affects ranking. None of that is present. The tool has no output schema, so return-value details are absent from both description and structured data, leaving an agent under-informed for invocation.

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 only 25% (only 'query' is described). The tool description adds no parameter insight: it does not explain 'scope', 'limit', or 'agent'. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to clarify parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Search') and a clear resource ('remembered preferences'), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_knowledge (knowledge) and list_catalog (catalog listing). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling for contrast, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 clearly implies this tool is for searching preferences, and the phrase 'remembered preferences' gives context for when to use it. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose recall over search_knowledge or list_catalog, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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