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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it notes the need for 'a workspace/key for durable memory' (auth requirement), provides a concrete example URL, and explains the purpose of retrieved content (decisions, fixes, preferences). This goes beyond the baseline.

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 plus a compact example, with the main action stated first. Every sentence contributes: purpose, use case, example, and auth requirement. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool, the description covers all essential aspects: what it retrieves, when to use it, how to filter, an example call, and an auth prerequisite. Combined with the complete input schema and output schema, the agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, project). The description only mirrors this by mentioning 'filtered by search query and/or project' and gives an example URL placeholder, but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 opens with 'Retrieve previously stored memories', which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'remember' (store) and 'forget' (delete). It also specifies the scope (filtered by query/project), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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?

The description gives explicit context: 'Call at the start of work on a known project to restore context'. It also describes the optional filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative tool (e.g., 'remember' for storing), so it falls short of a 5.

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