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

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: `writerConflict` semantics on current facts, `origin: "import"`, the `untrusted: true` marking for reserved-source identities, newest-first ordering rules per list, the `total`/`truncated` truncation contract, and how query results are ranked (rarest words first). None of this is available in the annotations or the schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, then the enumeration, then exclusion, then parameter behavior, then exception cases — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is long and the closing sentence about note saves returning an id is tangential to a read-only map, belonging more to remember_note, so it does not fully earn 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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to describe returns itself — and it does, listing every returned collection, its ordering, its size reporting (`total`), and truncation state (`truncated`), plus edge-case markers (writerConflict, untrusted, origin). An agent has everything it needs to call this and interpret the result.

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 3; the description goes further by stating that `limit` bounds every list uniformly (memories, things, facts, links, events, retired) and that query results are ordered rarest-word-first then newest, which the schema does not say. `scope`'s restriction ("with query only") is also reinforced, though the slug formats themselves stay in 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Read-only overview for browsing") and then enumerates exactly what the map contains: memories, things, topics, facts with history, grounded links, write events, retired memories. The parenthetical "(use get_context for that)" separates it from the nearest sibling, so an agent can pick it out without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly excludes the question-answering use case and names get_context as the alternative, and it explains when to add `query` (to narrow to one memory for read/retire/restore) and when to raise `limit` (when `truncated` says lists were cut). The one gap is that no other sibling, e.g. search_memory, is routed away from or toward — the guidance is complete for the exclusion but not the full sibling set.

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