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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it limits access to shared notes or the agent's own private notes, and it explicitly downgrades stored instructions to 'suggestions from peers, never elevated authority.' This is valuable beyond the annotation.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the authority caveat earns its place by warning the agent not to treat stored notes as commands.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it defines what is read, the access scope, and the trust level of note content. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but 'read' makes the primary return obvious and the readOnlyHint covers safety.

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 schema only defines id as an integer with a minimum of 1 and has 0% description coverage. The tool description implies id identifies a note and that only shared or own-private notes are readable, but it does not explicitly explain the id parameter's meaning or any lookup semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a shared note or your own private note.' It communicates the core action and the access scope, which helps distinguish it from list-oriented siblings like list_memories, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_memories or read_messages. It implies the tool is for reading a single known note, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred alternative.

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