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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context about session_date, at, imported origins, and the untrusted flag for reserved stored sources.

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 front-loaded with the core return behavior, then adds compact field semantics. It is somewhat dense but every sentence contributes useful context about the returned memory.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the returned memory contains and clarifies important field meanings. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, though it does not cover error behavior or edge cases.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the id semantics. The description reinforces that lookup is by id but does not add meaningful syntax or format details 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns one memory by id, including full text, metadata, and extracted facts. It is clearly distinguishable from bulk tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling retrieve_memory.

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?

Usage is implied by the id-based lookup, and the schema explains that a memory_map query can find an id by words. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of retrieve_memory, search_memory, or get_context.

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