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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open-world access, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that data is resolved against current public information rather than the saved copy, that withdrawn sources fail, and the exact auth scheme (pre-provisioned MLAIEL bearer scope read_public, custom auth, explicitly not OAuth). Return format and error shape remain unstated.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the read/availability statement is front-loaded ahead of the auth prerequisite. The opening phrase 'Read your saved source using current public information' is slightly convoluted but earns its place.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the definition covers the important non-obvious facts: freshness semantics, unavailability of withdrawn records, and the non-standard auth requirement. The main gap is how an agent discovers a valid publicId, which falls outside what annotations or schema supply.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not mention publicId at all. The schema's uuid format and pattern make the type self-evident, but nothing explains that this is the identifier of the saved memory or how to find it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read your saved source', qualified by 'using current public information'. That qualification meaningfully distinguishes this fetch-by-id from a stale snapshot read, though it never directly contrasts with siblings like list_own_memories, and 'source' is only implicitly the memory entity named in the tool.

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?

Gives one real usage constraint ('withdrawn sources are unavailable'), which tells the agent a failure mode exists, but offers no when-to-use framing versus list_own_memories or remember_public_source, and no hint on where to obtain the publicId.

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