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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, making the trailing 'Read-only' largely redundant. The valuable addition is the return-content description ('the memory plus the note's title and path'), which is real behavioral disclosure given there is no output schema.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and return content, with no filler. 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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers both the operation and what comes back (memory + note title/path). Missing only minor details such as behavior when the memory id is unknown.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that id is a cloud uuid returned by recall/search. The description's 'by memory id' repeats this rather than extending it, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('show which note a memory came from') and names the keying parameter ('by memory id'), so an agent understands it's a provenance lookup. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fetch or recall_memories, so it falls 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?

'By memory id' implies usage when a memory id is in hand, and the schema note 'as returned by recall/search' hints at the workflow, but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance. Adequate but implicit.

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