search_memory

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses the ranking signals, return contents, post-ranking filter behavior, dropped-hit reporting, archived handling, and the exact role of recency_now. This gives the agent substantial behavioral context for invoking the search correctly.

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 dense but well structured: purpose first, return shape next, then filtering caveats, archived behavior, alternative tool, and recency semantics. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 complex search tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers nearly everything needed to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is include_reflections, which is neither described nor covered by schema description coverage.

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?

With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description carries most parameter meaning and does well for the filters, top_k implications, archived behavior, and recency_now. However, it does not explain include_reflections, leaving one non-obvious parameter undocumented in both the description and schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: hybrid ranked search over stored memory. It also states what is returned (ranked thought identifiers, scores, and available backends) and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_memory.

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?

It explains when to use this tool versus list_memory, notes that filters apply after ranking and may reduce results below top_k, and clarifies the default archived exclusion with the lifecycle_status=ARCHIVED alternative.

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