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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation set, which is sufficient given the read-only nature.

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?

A single sentence with a parenthetical hint provides all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and supplemental context.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description indicates the scope ('full body') which is reasonable for a recall operation. Minor gap: it does not specify the return format, but this is mitigated by the tool's simplicity and the explicit data source.

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%, and the description merely restates that the tool reads by name. The schema already documents the format requirement (kebab-case), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond confirming 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 explicitly states the verb 'Read', the resource 'one memory entry', and specifies how to get valid names via 'memory_index'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool memory_index by mentioning the source of names.

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 instructs users to get names from memory_index before using this tool, providing a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, but the reference to memory_index implies a structured workflow.

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