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

Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the description goes well beyond them, explaining known:false vs known:true empty results, closestSubjects suggestions, the untrusted marker for imported or reserved sources, writerConflict as an open disagreement, and the error shape when subject is omitted. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret output correctly.

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?

Purpose and result modes are front-loaded in the first sentence, then interpretation guidance follows. The text is dense but nearly every clause carries information; it is long only because the result interpretation is genuinely intricate.

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 must describe return values, and it does: current:true, conflicts, writerConflict details, known flag, closestSubjects, and untrusted marking. Combined with the scope and error behavior notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by clarifying that include_history returns superseded values, as_of yields a point-in-time view, and scope judges everything within that scope only (a subject saved elsewhere is unknown). It also clarifies that omitting subject produces an error listing known subjects, which resolves the ambiguity in the schema where required is empty.

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 and enumerates the three result modes (current values, include_history, as_of), which is far more precise than the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similarly named siblings such as read_memory or search_memory, so an agent must guess which retrieval tool to prefer.

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 explains when to use each parameter mode (include_history for superseded values, as_of for point-in-time) and how to interpret results, but never states when to pick this tool over read_memory, search_memory, memory_map, or get_context. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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