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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context: an auth prerequisite (registered handle + secret) and the full set of counters/breakdowns returned, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a dense enumeration and the auth note. The metric list is somewhat long but each item is informative rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and stating the authentication requirement. The only gap is the unresolved required/optional status of `secret` relative to the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does add the key qualifier that the handle must be a *registered* one and that a secret is involved. However, it claims "handle + secret required" while the schema marks only handle as required, a mild inconsistency that leaves secret's role ambiguous.

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+resource ("Show your memory usage") and enumerates the exact metrics returned (total entries, bytes, namespace/TTL/pinned counts, quota, per-namespace breakdown). This clearly separates it from recall/search/store siblings, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is implied by the metric list (check usage/quota) and there is a useful prerequisite note ("Registered handle + secret required"), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-another-tool guidance against siblings like summarize_memory or list_memory.

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