search_personal_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully scopes behavior (only imported conversations and notes, only personal-experience evidence), and 'search' reasonably implies a non-destructive read. But it does not disclose relevance-ranking behavior, matching semantics, or whether full text or snippets are returned, so some behavior remains unstated.

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?

A single sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every phrase earns its place: 'imported' scopes the corpus, 'conversations and notes' names the sources, and 'evidence of relevant personal experience' states the retrieval intent.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers what is searched, from where, and for what, and the output schema handles return-value structure. The only gap is behavioral nuance like ranking or snippet behavior, which is minor for tool selection.

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%: both 'query' ('Topic or experience to search for') and 'limit' ('Maximum number of matches') are already documented in the schema. The tool description mirrors the query semantics but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('imported conversations and notes'), and a clear intent ('evidence of relevant personal experience'). This differentiates it sharply from every sibling, which are all save/update/import/add/manage/refresh/list operations — this is the only retrieval tool in the set.

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 word 'imported' signals clear usage context: this tool is used after content has been brought in (e.g., via import_chat_history), and it is the dedicated retrieval path for personal-experience evidence. No sibling competes for this job since all others are mutation or listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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