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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing content provenance and trust level: the body is unreviewed context from another agent or person, should be verified, and must not be treated as instructions. That is meaningful prompt-injection guidance not available in structured fields. It does not describe error behavior or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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 action and scope, followed by the usage trigger and a compact safety warning; every sentence earns its place. The trailing API reference URL is the only mild padding.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description still indicates what comes back ('the full body') and adds the trust caveat an agent needs before acting on the content. Return shape details (fields, ordering) are not specified but are minor for a single-record read.

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 sole memory_id parameter is fully documented (uuid format, pattern, origin from memory_search or memory_save). The description adds only 'by id', which is redundant with the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (read), resource (a single memory from the shared vault), and scope (by id, including the full body). It implicitly distinguishes itself from memory_search by framing this as the full-body retrieval step.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('after memory_search returns a truncated match'), which names the sibling tool and the triggering condition. No alternative routing is left to inference.

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