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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's meaningful addition is the deprecation/lifecycle context, but it says nothing about return shape, scoping behavior, or what happens if no records match — modest added value over the annotations.

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 zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact — that it is deprecated — is front-loaded before the functional description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the deprecation status plus account scoping are both disclosed. The only missing piece is a named successor tool, which would fully complete the guidance for a deprecated compatibility shim.

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 100% across all three parameters, including the enum on memoryType and the goal description, so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as how the goal string drives memoryType inference, making a baseline 3 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 — recalling existing Feature Memory records scoped to the owning account — so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby list_feature_memory, compare_feature_memory, or capture_feature siblings beyond the deprecation note.

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?

'Deprecated compatibility tool' and 'no longer part of the default planning path' clearly signal when NOT to reach for it, which is a real routing benefit. The one gap is that it never names the tool an agent should use instead, leaving the replacement to inference.

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