memory_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which could mislead an agent into thinking this is a pure read; the description reconciles this by stating 'Never changes memory content; it only updates recall counters.' It also discloses that results are filtered but not reranked and are returned as { data: [...] }. It does not cover pagination, error behavior, or auth requirements, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, the return shape follows, and the sibling routing plus the mutation caveat come last as qualifications.

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 no output schema, the description still specifies the return shape and fields (id, content, type, status, scores) and the { data: [...] } envelope. Between that and the 100%-covered input schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so every parameter (query, top_k, types, namespace) is already documented in the schema. The description restates top_k and the returned fields but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 mechanism and resource: 'Hybrid search (vector + keyword) over the user's active long-term memories.' It explicitly scopes the corpus to active memories and distinguishes itself from memory_recall and memory_list, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 the use case ('find memories you want to inspect or edit by id') and names the concrete alternative with its selecting condition: 'To answer a question with the most relevant, reranked memories plus glossary hits, use memory_recall instead.' Explicit when/when-not/alternative.

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