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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: promises survive from earlier sessions and earlier assistants, and it distinguishes 'watched' promises (measured against an exact line) from 'remembered only' ones (standing instructions with no measurement). This enriches the agent's understanding of the returned data.

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 paragraph that starts with a concrete definition and then explains use context and data semantics. The examples are helpful rather than redundant, though the final 'Read-only' restates what the annotations already provide.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough to invoke it correctly: what it returns, why it matters, and how the returned items are categorized. It does not specify the exact response shape, but that is not necessary for selecting or calling the tool.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description offers no parameter guidance, but none is needed because the tool takes no arguments; its focus on output semantics 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'See the standing promises this project's developer has recorded.' It also clarifies the tool is read-only and explains what promises are, which cleanly distinguishes this from siblings like boosthis_remember_promise.

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 gives explicit context for when to use it: 'Handy background before changing anything here.' It explains that promises persist across sessions and assistants, which justifies checking them before making changes. It does not explicitly name when not to use it, but for a parameterless read-only tool the context is sufficient.

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