company_memory_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses 'permission-first' and 'hybrid' search behavior, but doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what security/clearance requirements exist, how results are returned, or any other concrete behavioral details an agent needs.

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?

One short sentence with no filler words; the qualifiers 'permission-first', 'hybrid', and 'atomic, evidence-backed' are efficiently packed. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the brevity stems from word count rather than structured presentation.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It never mentions the required 'query' parameter, what 'permission-first' means operationally, the meaning of 'clearance'/'tenant_id', or the response shape. An agent would need much more context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 mentions no parameters. All 11 parameters, including the required 'query', are left to the agent to infer from names like 'groups_json' and 'clearance'. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the absence of parameter descriptions.

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 identifies a specific verb ('search'), resource ('company memory'), and includes distinctive qualifiers ('permission-first', 'hybrid', 'atomic, evidence-backed'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_memory' or 'trusted_memory_recall', leaving the agent to guess which search tool is which.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It merely implies a search use-case, and there is no indication of when a permission-first hybrid search is preferable to 'search_memory' or other sibling memory/recall tools.

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