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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool returns ciphertext, nonce, and content_hash (never plaintext), requires a wallet signature, and mentions GDPR compliance and cost. This is meaningful additional transparency about the operation's nature and constraints.

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 three sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and return type, then adds the signature requirement, compliance note, and cost. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is scannable for an agent.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained in the description. The description covers the essential context: what is returned, the signature requirement, compliance, and cost. It does not explicitly explain the owner vs. grantee role distinction or the deterministic read message, but the schema covers those parameter details. For a read-only tool with rich schema and annotations, this is nearly complete.

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 already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds a high-level note about requiring a wallet signature, which maps to the wallet_signature parameter, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieve'), a resource ('client-encrypted memory entries'), and a target ('for an entity'). It also distinguishes the tool's core behavior from siblings like memory.write and memory.query by emphasizing that it returns ciphertext, nonce, and content_hash, never plaintext. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct.

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 provides clear context: it requires a wallet signature and is for retrieving encrypted memory entries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the sibling list includes memory.query and memory.write, and the description's emphasis on 'never plaintext' implies a read-only, client-encrypted access path. The absence of explicit exclusions or alternative routing keeps this from a 5.

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