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 and adds no new behavioral information. Nothing is said about result ordering, pagination behavior, recency handling, or what an empty result means, leaving the behavioral picture thin for a retrieval tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, then the optional filter, then the safety note. Almost every clause earns its place; only the trailing "Read-only." is redundant against the annotations.

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 three-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, full annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The one remaining gap — no hint about result volume, ordering or truncation behavior — is minor given the limit parameter is documented in the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents query, entity and limit (with its default of 8). The description's entity sentence is essentially a paraphrase of the schema text and it says nothing about limit or query format, so it does not add meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (find/recall) and a clearly scoped resource ("the user's saved memories"), which separates it from generic siblings like search, search_notes, and fetch. However it never names or contrasts with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary between this and the plain search tool.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation — retrieval driven by "a question or topic" — and explains when to supply entity (to narrow to one person, company, project or topic). It stops short of any when-not guidance or explicit routing to alternative tools, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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