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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool produces one narrative synthesis and distinguishes current facts from superseded ones. It also warns that individual memory URLs are not provided, which is valuable for setting expectations.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the use case, provide examples, and then state the exclusions and alternative. No redundant phrasing or filler exists.

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 tool with one free-text parameter, no output schema, and annotations already covering the read-only safety profile, the description fully equips an agent to decide when to use it and what kind of response to expect. It also covers the main negative case (single facts needing citations).

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?

The schema only defines 'query' as a string with no description, so the tool description carries the burden. It effectively explains the query semantics by framing it as a topic-as-a-whole request and giving concrete examples, which is sufficient for a single free-text parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns a narrative synthesis of relevant memories. It distinguishes itself from search by noting that recall is for topic-level questions, not single facts or cited sources.

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?

It explicitly lists when to use the tool with example phrasings ('what do you know about X', 'catch me up on X') and when not to use it ('single fact' or 'need sources to cite'). It names the alternative, search, making the routing decision unambiguous.

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