search_voice_memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: substring rather than token/fuzzy matching, result ordering (newest first), and a hard cap of 50 on limit. It omits edge behavior such as case sensitivity or empty-result handling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the matching behavior and followed by returns and the limit constraint. The return-field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; no filler sentences are present.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing returned fields and ordering. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the remaining gaps (case sensitivity, no-match behavior, whether limit can be zero) are minor.

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 carry both parameters, and it largely does: it specifies that query is a substring keyword match against four named fields, and that limit is capped at 50 (beyond the schema's default of 10). Both parameters gain meaning the schema lacks, though no format or syntax examples are given.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('keyword search ... over title, summary, transcript and tags') and even names the matching semantics (substring). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_recent_memories, which is also a list-style retrieval tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is clearly a keyword/substring search, so an agent can infer it is for finding memories by text content. However, no when-to-use condition is stated and no alternative (get_recent_memories, get_voice_memory) is named, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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