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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: results are sorted by importance and the limit is capped at 30, a constraint absent from the 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, the limit constraint, and the usage trigger. Front-loaded with the return semantics before the constraint and the when-to-use hint.

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, idempotent retrieval tool with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back and how much. The only gap is the expected form of the `project` argument.

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 carries the burden. It explains `limit` well (caps results, max 30) but says nothing about the format or expectations of the required `project` identifier, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope ('for one project') and an enumeration of what is returned (decisions, preferences, to-dos, context). An agent can distinguish it from memory_search or memory_list by the project scoping, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Useful before working on a project the user has mentioned' gives a clear triggering context. It stops short of advising when NOT to use it or naming the alternative tools for other retrieval modes, so it is strong context without exclusions.

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