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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that memos require user approval before being saved and that the channel ID defaults to the currently active channel when omitted. This goes beyond basic operation description, though it does not cover all conceivable behaviors such as return values or error cases.

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 concise and well-structured, with three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, the approval requirement, and channel default behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: the creation action, the approval step, and the channel default. It does not describe the return value or potential failure modes, but those are less critical for a create operation compared to safety or filtering details.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no significant parameter-specific details beyond what the schema states; the only additional nuance is the explanation of the approval workflow, which is not parameter-related.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new memo by AI assistant.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get, list, search) by focusing on the creation action rather than retrieval or search operations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (creating a memo) and includes important usage details like the approval requirement and channel default behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would make it a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the return value ('detailed memo information including content, metadata, and relationships') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or read-only status. Minimal transparency beyond the return payload.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. Highly concise.

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 single-parameter get operation, the description adequately covers the purpose and return value. The tool has no output schema, so mentioning 'content, metadata, and relationships' helps the agent understand the response. Missing error handling or not-found behavior is not critical for this simple 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 coverage is 100% with the memoId parameter described as 'ID of the memo to retrieve.' The description adds the adjective 'specific' but no additional semantic detail such as format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter.

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's function: 'Retrieves a specific memo by its ID.' The verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'specific memo by its ID' distinguish it from siblings like memo_list (likely retrieves many) and memo_search (likely query-based).

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 implies usage when you have a memo ID and need detailed info, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use sibling tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination and the channel defaulting, which are useful. However, it omits details on ordering, error behavior, permissions, or the exact structure of returned 'memo information', leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and adding relevant detail without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and it is clearly structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It only vaguely says 'paginated results with memo information', leaving the agent to infer field names and pagination metadata. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the channel fallback context (already in schema) but does not enrich parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying skip/take compounding or result shape. It is adequate but not additive.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a list of memos, scoped to a channel with a fallback to the active channel. It distinguishes itself from siblings (memo_create, memo_get, memo_search) by focusing on list retrieval and pagination, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the channel fallback behavior, providing context on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like memo_get (for a single memo) or memo_search (for finding memos by criteria), leaving the decision purely inferential.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the search behavior, channel filtering, the default channel fallback, and the return format (JSON). While it does not explicitly state that it is a non-destructive read operation, the term 'searches' implies this. It also does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action ('Searches for memos'). Every sentence provides useful information—what it does, its key capabilities, the default channel behavior, and the return format—without any redundancy or fluff.

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 search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the main functionality, channel defaulting, and return format. It could benefit from mentioning how limit works or suggested use cases relative to sibling tools, but these gaps are not critical given the schema coverage.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, channelIds), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, only minimally referencing content search and channel filtering. Since the schema already documents all parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Searches for memos in the database' with specific capabilities like content-based search and channel filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as memo_create, memo_get, and memo_list, which handle creation, retrieval, and listing respectively.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for searching memos by content and optionally filtering by channel. It also notes the default behavior of using the currently active channel, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as when listing all memos without a query.

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