memory_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are ranked 'best matches first' and returns ids/titles/snippets, but the latter duplicates the existing output schema; no note on result limits or empty-result behavior.

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 short sentences, purpose and scope front-loaded, with zero filler 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needn't explain return fields; it covers purpose, scope and ranking. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance against the sibling memory_read/write tools.

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 100% with all three parameters documented, so the schema carries the load. The description's 'for this project' only loosely reinforces the all_projects default and adds no syntax or format detail.

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 (Search) and resource (notes agents have saved for this project), plus what it returns. It is clear on its own but never names the adjacent siblings memory_read/memory_write, so an agent must infer the search-vs-read distinction.

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 scope phrase 'for this project' implies when the tool applies, and the all_projects parameter implies the broader variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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