Search personal memories

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context by stating that results are 'titled, dated facts the user wrote' and 'authoritative for their timeline,' which tells the agent about the nature and trustworthiness of the returned data.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the rest of the description is easily scannable. The trigger examples are useful and not redundant, though the middle section could be slightly more condensed without losing value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are presumably covered. The description offers clear usage triggers and partial parameter guidance. The main gap is the lack of any mention of bank_title and limit, which are relevant for filtering and result control, but overall the description is adequate for a read-only search tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain query ('keywords'), entity ('person or topic tag from memories'), and date range (date_from/date_to). However, it omits any explanation of bank_title and limit, leaving two of six parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('the user's curated memory banks (local Hub)'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_banks and get_memories_by_date_range, which focus on listing banks or date-specific retrieval. The trigger examples further reinforce the tool's intended scope.

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 explicitly says 'USE FIRST when context about the user's own past — personal OR work/research — would help answer the question,' and gives concrete trigger examples. This is strong when-to-use guidance, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly contrast with the sibling tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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