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

The clause 'results are evidence, not verified facts' is genuinely valuable — it tells the agent how much to trust the output, which the annotations do not convey. However, it omits what 'statuses' mean, how scoping/namespace isolation works, or why a pure query carries readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; that annotation profile sits uneasily with a 'Query' verb and is left unexplained.

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?

A single compact sentence with the trust caveat placed after the scope statement — no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for a 6-parameter tool with three undocumented params, but every word earns its place.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage, and no annotations explaining the read/non-read status, the description should at minimum define the three modes and the temporal semantics. As written, an agent cannot call this correctly without reverse-engineering the schema.

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 only 33%: known_at and valid_at are well documented in-schema, but mode, subject, namespace, and predicate have no descriptions anywhere. Critically, the description never explains what current/history/as_of actually return, which is the single most decision-relevant parameter for this tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('scoped temporal source assertions and their statuses'), which is more precise than a generic memory read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as memory.query, memory.revisions, or memory.hybrid_recall, so an agent must infer the boundary from the word 'temporal' alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it versus memory.query or memory.revisions, and no prerequisites. The only routing signal is the adjective 'temporal' and the mode enum in the schema, which the description never references.

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