memory_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail of 'local relevance ranking', which gives some context about how results are ordered, but it does not elaborate on what 'local' means or disclose potential quirks like pagination or timeouts.

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 words. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could add a brief mention of alternatives without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety, so completeness is partly derived from those structured fields. However, with no parameter descriptions and no usage guidance relative to sibling tools, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an AI agent trying to decide when to use this tool.

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 undocumented parameters. It conveys that a query is used for searching but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or its default/maximum values. The phrase 'local relevance ranking' offers a hint at result ordering but is insufficient for fully understanding parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Search') and resource ('all memories'), with a qualifier ('local relevance ranking') that hints at its scope. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search_vector and memory_search_archive by emphasizing 'all memories', but does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 implies this tool should be used for broad searches across all memories, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, despite the presence of sibling search tools such as memory_search_vector and memory_search_archive.

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