search_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about cost ($0.005 USDC) and service provider (memex), which aren't captured elsewhere. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what constitutes 'most relevant matches' in the search algorithm.

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 appropriately brief with three concise sentences that each add value: the core functionality, return behavior, and cost/service information. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return format, error handling, or important behavioral constraints. The cost information is helpful but doesn't compensate for the major gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meanings. It doesn't explain what 'agent_id' refers to, what format 'query' should take, or what 'top_k' controls. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 performs 'semantic search across all agent memories' and 'returns most relevant matches', specifying both the action (search) and resource (agent memories). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_memory' and 'write_memory' by focusing on search functionality rather than direct memory access. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this search is appropriate compared to other memory-related tools like 'read_memory', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The cost information is useful but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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