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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds scoping context ('Scoped to your identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID)') and the dual behavior of retrieving vs listing all keys, which is useful beyond the 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value: functionality, use cases, and scoping/pairing. No fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, scoping, and relationship to sibling tools. Nothing significant is missing.

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% and the property description already explains the key parameter ('Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys)'). The tool description essentially repeats this info, adding no new semantic depth beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument).' It clearly identifies the resource (saved values) and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning remember and forget as paired operations.

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?

It states when to use the tool: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier — the user's target ticker, an address, prior research notes — without re-deriving it from scratch.' It also names alternatives and the workflow: 'Pair with remember to save, forget to delete.'

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