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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data rather than adding context. It says nothing about behavior for an invalid or missing id, output size, or truncation, so with annotations carrying the safety profile a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the qualifier placed after it. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (full text of a single memory) and how to source the id. It omits error behavior for an unknown id, but that is a minor gap for a simple read.

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 schema already documents the single id parameter, but the description adds meaning beyond it by specifying the id's origin ('returned by search'), which tells the agent where to obtain a valid value. That is genuine added value over the schema's 'The memory id to fetch.'

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (the full text of one saved memory) plus the scope/provenance of the key input. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search', which returns ids rather than content.

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 phrase 'by the id returned by search' clearly frames this as the follow-up step after a search, so the agent knows the context. There is no explicit when-not use or naming of alternatives such as recall_memories, keeping it short of a 5.

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