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 little behavioral context beyond the retrieval action and the claim that it accepts 'coordinate address,' which is not otherwise represented in the schema or 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key access mechanism with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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 read-by-identifier tool with only two parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the unexplained 'coordinate address' concept and the lack of guidance on behavior when the memory is not found.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a hint that 'id' may accept either a UUID or a coordinate address, but it does not clarify the format or relationship to the galaxy parameter. This is marginal value beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' with a clear resource ('a specific memory') and identifies access by 'ID or coordinate address.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like memory.list and memory.search, which imply listing or searching rather than direct retrieval. However, 'coordinate address' is not defined or reflected in the schema, introducing slight ambiguity.

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 implies this tool should be used when you already have a memory ID or coordinate address, which is a clear context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like memory.search or memory.hybrid_recall, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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