search_memory_facts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Search' implies a read, but the description discloses nothing about return shape, result limits, ordering, or pagination behavior. For a 9-parameter tool this is a substantial behavioral gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally clean.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and nine parameters, the definition is too thin. It omits which filters are required, how time bounds behave (valid_at vs invalid_at), and how results are limited, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it 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%, so the description must compensate for all nine parameters. It names filter categories (type, time, group, center) that map loosely to edge_types, valid_at/invalid_at, group_ids, and center_node_uuid, but leaves query and max_facts unaddressed and gives no format or semantics (e.g. date format, uuid meaning) beyond the bare parameter names.

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 resource (temporal facts) and enumerates the filter dimensions (type, time, group, center). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_nodes, so an agent must infer the boundary between facts and nodes.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to any alternative (e.g. search_nodes for entities, get_episodes for episodes). The agent is left to guess which of the six sibling search/get tools applies.

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