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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: workspace scoping, that a sku pulls the SKU's memories plus the general ones, and that `narrative` is the answer (valuable given no output schema). It lacks any note on limits/pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource identity and the imperative to call it early, then tucks parameter behavior and the return-value hint behind. Three dense sentences with little waste, though the run-on imperative clause slightly compresses 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?

No output schema exists, and the description helpfully flags `narrative` as the field to read, which is exactly the gap it should fill. Combined with usage timing and parameter semantics, it is nearly complete; only limit/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 only 33% (just `limit`), so the description must compensate for `sku` and `kind`. It does: `kind` is described as a single-kind filter, and `sku` is explained as returning that SKU's memories plus the general ones — a semantic detail not present in the schema. `limit` is left to the schema, which documents it.

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 states a specific verb+resource: retrieving 'the seller's saved goals, rules, decisions and notes for this workspace.' It is clearly distinguishable from the write/delete siblings (remember, forget), though it never names them explicitly. That omission keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is explicit and strong: 'call it at the start of a conversation and before advising, and follow the goals and rules in every answer.' There is no stated when-not condition and no named alternative, so it stops at a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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