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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by clarifying that the returned memory includes its url for citation and that ids are only valid if originating from search. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The primary usage instruction is front-loaded, followed by parameter provenance and an important constraint. 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers when to use, parameter source, return behavior, and the citation requirement. No critical operational information is missing.

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 documents the id parameter. The description adds value by explaining that the id must come from search results and exactly as returned, providing provenance that the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('memory'), and clearly differentiates from search by specifying it retrieves full text for a relevant search result. It also explicitly says valid ids come only from search, distinguishing it from other sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use when a search result looks relevant and full text is needed before answering. It also gives an exclusion: do not call with ids from anywhere else, since only search results carry valid ids. This leaves no ambiguity about invocation context.

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