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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the content type ('personal facts, preferences, and context') but does not disclose any operational behavior such as how filtering works, whether all entries are returned when no category is given, or the order of results.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core operation and then explains what the memory entries are. There is no filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that omitting the category returns all memories, though the schema's optionality implies this. No output schema exists, but the return concept ('entries') is intuitively clear.

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 fully covers the single 'category' parameter with an enum and a clear description ('Filter by category'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('the user's AI memory entries'), and it adds context about what those entries contain. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from broader tools like 'search' or other list tools, but the resource is specific enough that the name and description together make the purpose clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_user_memory', 'delete_user_memory', or the general 'search' tool. No prerequisites, exclusions, or situational context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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