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

The description substantially extends beyond the annotations by disclosing client-side encryption, 'Server never sees plaintext (PBKDF2/AES-256-GCM)', wallet-signature auth, JSON receipt return, GDPR compliance, and per-call cost. This gives an agent crucial behavioral and operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then security/auth behavior, then receipt and compliance/cost notes. Every sentence contributes substantive operational information without redundancy.

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 12-parameter cryptographic write tool, the description covers purpose, security, auth, return type, compliance, and cost. The output schema and full input schema already cover return and parameter details. A slight gap is the lack of explicit retry/idempotency implications, though the idempotentHint=false annotation partially covers this.

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 baseline is 3tons but the description adds meaningful context: 'client-encrypted' links to ciphertext/nonce/hash parameters, 'Requires wallet signature' clarifies owner_wallet and wallet_signature, and the encryption details help explain the required content fields.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Store a client-encrypted memory entry for an entity.' It clearly identifies the write operation and differentiates from siblings like memory.read, memory.query, memory.revoke, and memory.attest by emphasizing client-side encryption and entity-scoped storage.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is providedgett. The description does not name any alternatives or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.

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