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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the memory is private to the agent identity, reads require a bearer key, and the default return granularity is the full body. This is useful behavioral information not available from annotations or the 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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action, the default behavior, the main alternative, and the access requirement with no wasted words. The most important operational details are front-loaded.

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, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safe annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the default behavior, the relevant alternative tool, and the authentication/privacy constraint, so an agent can invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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 thoroughly. The description reinforces the id and detail behavior but does not need to add much; the 'defaults to full body' line slightly supplements the detail parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('your saved checkpoint by stable id'), and immediately clarifies the default behavior ('defaults to full body'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling list_memory, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 tells the agent when to use list_memory instead ('Use list_memory if you forgot the name'), and it states the access condition up front ('Private to this agent identity; requires an agent bearer key, including reads'). This provides clear selection and invocation guidance.

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