search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the two search modes (keyword and semantic) but does not explain what the operation returns, how results are ordered, whether any side effects exist, or how filters interact with search. Since search is read-only, basic safety is implied, but the description lacks meaningful behavioral detail.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 has a compact schema but includes a nested filters object and no output schema. The description is too sparse to guide an agent on how to craft effective searches, use filters, or interpret results. It does not mention filtering, limiting, or result format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 50%, and the description only indirectly clarifies the 'mode' parameter via 'keyword or semantic similarity.' It provides no additional meaning for 'limit' or the nested 'filters' object, which remain underdocumented. The description does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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'), resource ('memory'), and method ('by keyword or semantic similarity'). It also differentiates from the sibling tool 'recall' by noting when this tool is appropriate, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly provides a usage condition: 'Use this tool when recall is too broad and you need specific facts.' This directly addresses when to use it relative to the likely alternative (recall), giving clear guidance.

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