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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool defaults to full body (which is notable because the schema's detail parameter says 'Default abstract, except get_memory defaults to full'), and it is private to the agent identity. It also implies a read operation that returns a saved checkpoint. It doesn't describe pagination or error behavior, but the output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile, so a 4 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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Read your saved checkpoint by stable id'), then adds the default behavior, the alternative tool, and the privacy constraint. Every sentence 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 read-only tool with a full output schema, 100% schema description coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to do, when to use it, what the default is, and how to recover if the id is forgotten. Nothing critical is missing.

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 all three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the default behavior of the 'detail' parameter (defaults to full body), which is a semantic nuance not fully captured in the schema's enum description. It also reinforces the meaning of 'id' as a stable private note name. This goes beyond the schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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 ('Read'), a resource ('saved checkpoint'), and a key identifier ('by stable id'), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from list_memory. It also clarifies the default behavior ('defaults to full body'), which is a concrete, useful detail. This is a clear, specific purpose statement that an agent can act on.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Read your saved checkpoint by stable id') and when to use an alternative ('Use list_memory if you forgot the name'). It also notes the tool is 'Private to this agent identity,' which is a usage constraint. This is explicit guidance that leaves little to inference.

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