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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what the tool returns and how the optional 'who' parameter affects the output, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether this is read-only, whether it accesses existing relationship data, or what happens if 'who' refers to an existing interlocutor rather than a new one.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. The main output behavior is front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is appended concisely. Every word contributes information.

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 optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior. But given the presence of siblings and the potentially misleading name 'retrieve,' the description omits critical context about when to use the tool and what it does not do, such as whether it returns stored relationship memories or simply API metadata.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'who' pre-fills a starter card for a new interlocutor, which goes beyond the bare string/null schema. However, it does not specify the expected format of 'who' or how it behaves for existing interlocutors, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action and output: 'Return schema, sample, HTTP and MCP entrypoints.' This clearly distinguishes it from the write-oriented sibling 'store' and the validation-oriented 'validate'. It could be slightly clearer about whether it retrieves stored relationship memories versus API metadata, but the stated purpose is concrete and specific.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus relationship_memory.store or relationship_memory.validate. The only contextual hint is that 'who= pre-fills a starter card for a new interlocutor,' which implies when to pass the optional parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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