search_memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that only "active" memories are searched and how to recover from zero hits, but says nothing about result ordering or match semantics.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then technique, then alternative. No wasted words.

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 search tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is serviceable, but with 0% schema coverage the undocumented kind and namespace parameters leave the callable surface incompletely explained.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It gives guidance for query and limit, but the kind enum (fact/preference/decision/plan) and the namespace pattern parameter are left entirely undocumented.

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+resource ("Search active memories") and scopes it to active rather than archived records. It does not explicitly contrast with the many write siblings (add/update/delete_memory), but the read intent is unambiguous from the verb.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance (1-3 distinctive terms, limit 3-5, shorten query on zero hits) and names an alternative with its condition: "Prefer get_profile for stack/conventions." It stops short of covering when to use memory_stats or the write siblings.

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