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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the crucial fact that it returns ciphertext, never plaintext, which is a significant behavioral disclosure that the annotations do not cover. It also mentions cost per call and compliance references, adding context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with three sentences, but it front-loads the key purpose and critical behavior (ciphertext) before legal/cost details. It is not overly verbose and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters, a complex output schema (output schema exists), and the description covers the key behavioral aspects (ciphertext, signature requirement), it is reasonably complete. However, it does not detail return value structure, pagination, or error scenarios, which might be expected for a query tool with such rich filters.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description lists some filter dimensions (entity_type, category, tags, time range) but adds little detail beyond what the schema gives. For example, the schema already describes each parameter. The description does not introduce new semantics that aren't already in the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'Query' and the resource 'owner memory entries' with clear filter dimensions. It distinguishes from likely write tools (memory.write) and read tools (memory.read) by focusing on querying with filters corrected. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from memory.read, though the mention of filters and metadata suggests a more advanced read.

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 states it requires a wallet signature, which implies when authentication is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to use this vs memory.read or when not to use it. The context is clear for querying filtered memory, but no alternatives are mentioned.

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