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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral rule: `saude`-tagged health data is only returned when the user has enabled AI sharing in settings, which explains why content may be missing. No mention of truncation or pagination, but that is minor for a by-id fetch.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the privacy caveat second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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-value documentation is unnecessary. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, where the id comes from, and the one condition under which content may be withheld.

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 single parameter is documented as 'Item id from a search result.' The description's 'by id, as returned by search' conveys the same provenance already stated in the schema, so it adds no new semantic detail. 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 and resource ('Retrieve the full content of one CortexPlus memory item') plus the lookup key ('by id'). The phrase 'as returned by search' cleanly separates it from the sibling search tool, which lists items rather than returning full content.

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 establishes the workflow context: this tool is used on an id that came from a search result, implying it follows a search call. It gives no explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance, but the usage condition is unambiguous for a single-item reader.

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