memory_search_archive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context that the archive is compacted and contains details compressed out of hot memory, implying results may be less complete. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action ('Search the cold archive') followed by a clear usage note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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 simple read-only search tool with one required parameter and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the archive is, when to use the tool, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the query or limit parameters. It does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantics about how searching works or what limit controls.

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 function: 'Search the cold archive (compacted entries)'. It uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (cold archive), and explicitly distinguishes itself from hot memory search by mentioning 'compressed out of the hot memory'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_search.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you need old details that were compressed out of the hot memory.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not name alternatives directly. However, the contrast between cold archive and hot memory implies the alternative (search hot memory) sufficiently.

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