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

The description implies a read operation ('Recall') but the annotations set readOnlyHint to false, suggesting possible side effects that are not disclosed. No additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, side effects on memory access) are described, leaving transparency gaps despite the annotation bar being lower.

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, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and each sentence adds value: action, then usage guidance. No wasteful words or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage timing. Minor gaps include unclear side effects, but overall it's reasonably complete for a retrieval tool with clear parameters.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds contextual guidance for the 'type' filter by linking it to author's notes, which enhances meaning beyond the schema and helps correctly apply the parameter.

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 tool recalls long-term memories for the current household, distinguishing it from memory-writing tools like store_memory and update_memory. The verb 'recall' and resource 'long-term memories' are specific and align with the tool's intended function.

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 instructs to call this at the start of advisory or open-ended turns, providing clear contextual timing. It also explains when to use the type filter, but does not mention alternatives or explicit exclusions for other turn types.

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