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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' adds little. The description does add useful behavioral context about returning the archetype versus a relationship-specific variant, but it does not explain scoping, authorization, or what 'versions' includes beyond the output 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?

The description is compact and front-loads the key archetype-vs-variant behavior. The final 'Read-only' sentence is redundant with the annotations and does not earn its place, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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 getter with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the central output distinction adequately. It remains incomplete on firmName semantics, how companyId scopes the memo, and why this should be chosen over adjacent memo tools.

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 67%, and the description importantly explains relationshipId semantics: omitted means the archetype, provided means that relationship's variant. However, it does not explain the required companyId or the optional firmName, so it only partially compensates for the schema's terse UUID-wrapper descriptions.

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 that the tool returns a memo and its versions, and explains the archetype-vs-relationship-variant distinction. It is specific about the resource and output mode, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling memo tools such as fundraising_get_memo_engagement or fundraising_get_list_memo_links.

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 only conditional guidance is about how relationshipId changes the returned variant, not when to use this tool instead of other memo-related tools. There is no explicit routing to alternatives or statement of when-not-to-use, leaving tool selection largely inferred from the name.

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