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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description mainly needs to clarify the historical, single-memory scope. It does imply that scope through 'one saved metric, deal stage or priority changed over time', but it does not describe the return shape, ordering, time coverage, or what happens when no history exists.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the trigger condition and follows with illustrative examples. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description is sufficient to know when to invoke it. However, with no output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing whether the response is a timeline, list of changes, or snapshots, and that information is absent.

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 schema already documents both required parameters with key and category examples. The description adds useful user-facing examples of memory types (metric, deal stage, priority) but does not add syntax, format, or parameter-mapping detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly frames the tool around asking how one saved metric, deal stage or priority changed over time, which gives a specific use case rather than a bare restatement of the name. It implicitly differentiates from snapshot-style siblings like get_revenue_memory through the 'changed over time' framing, though it never explicitly names an alternative or states that it returns a history.

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions and concrete user-question examples such as "What was my MRR 3 months ago?" and "When did my biggest deal move into procurement?". It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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