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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the operation's non-mutating nature, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds workflow context and field specifics but does not describe error behavior, auth requirements, or additional behavioral traits.

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 concise sentences pack the resource, the returned fields, and the recommended usage without repetition. The information is front-loaded and every clause contributes.

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?

Given the tool's simple single-parameter interface, the existing readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers identification, field scope, and invocation context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema has one required memory_id with only a type and no description, and the description never mentions the parameter by name or explains how to identify the memory. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not.

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 uses a specific verb–resource pair ('Get full details on a single memory') and enumerates the returned fields, making it easy to distinguish from list_memories and other siblings. It also grounds the purpose in a concrete workflow by naming update_memory_status as the follow-up call.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: before calling update_memory_status on a specific memory. It does not spell out when not to use it or point to list_memories as the alternative for browsing multiple memories, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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