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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses behavioral traits beyond the schema: compact mode truncates to an 800-character fragment while full/json include all content and metadata, and the operation is a read-style exact lookup. It does not state missing-ID error behavior or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds relevant usage or parameter/output detail, with no filler.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema but no annotations and 0% schema descriptions, the description covers the missing ID-format semantics, format modes, and return behavior. It gives the agent enough to call the tool correctly without needing to open the output schema for basic understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that id accepts numeric memory_vectorial IDs, prefixed forms (#4039, v4039), and memory_items IDs (vmi<uuid>). It also defines format values compact, full, and json, including the default and the output difference.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Obtiene una memoria exacta por ID, sin pasar por el ranking.' It immediately distinguishes exact-ID retrieval from ranked search tools such as search_hipocampo / quick_hipocampo_search by saying it bypasses ranking.

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 clearly frames when to use it: deterministic retrieval for 'tráeme el recuerdo N' by known ID, explicitly not competing with dozens of ranked results. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative like search_hipocampo for the opposite case, so it lacks fully explicit when-not guidance.

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