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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and the 'full content' vs. 'truncated' contrast discloses the key behavioral trait: the response is complete, unlike search results. The 'Get' verb signals a non-mutating read operation, so no side-effect or safety disclosure is needed. It does not cover not-found/error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple single-get tool.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first states the operation and its distinguishing feature, the second gives the use condition with rationale. The action verb and key differentiator are front-loaded, and every clause 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 single-parameter get tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. The only omissions — where memory_id originates and not-found behavior — are minor given the tool's simplicity and the availability of a rich output schema.

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%, and the description merely echoes the 'by ID' mechanism already documented in the schema for memory_id. No additional format, sourcing, or validation semantics are added beyond the schema's 'The memory ID to retrieve.' The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 plus resource: 'Get a single memory by ID with full content,' which precisely states the operation and its defining feature. It clearly differentiates from siblings like memra_list and memra_recall by emphasizing single-item retrieval with complete, untruncated content. Nothing is vague or tautological.

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?

'Use when you need the complete text of a memory' gives an explicit triggering condition for selecting this tool. The parenthetical '(search results are truncated)' explains why this tool exists and implies the alternative search/recall path, though it does not name a sibling tool explicitly or state when-not-to-use.

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