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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that reads are free and unlimited, and that the output is a memory bundle. It implies the operation is private and non-destructive, but could explicitly state that it only accesses the user's own memories via the required 'email' parameter.

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?

Four succinct sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains parameter usage, the third describes the output format, and the fourth provides pricing/limit info. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use parameters, what the output is, and that it is free. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the output structure (e.g., whether it's JSON or text), but the mention of 'system prompt' and 'bundle' is sufficient for its simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference between omitting and providing the 'key' parameter, and clarifies that omitting yields a system-prompt-ready bundle. This goes beyond the schema's structural description.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'private Zambo memories'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'zambo_remember' by being the retrieval counterpart, and the mention of 'all sessions' clarifies its scope.

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 provides guidance on when to omit or provide the 'key' parameter, and mentions the output is a portable memory bundle for pasting into sessions. However, it does not explicitly compare usage with sibling tools like 'zambo_brief' or 'zambo_mesh', leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred.

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