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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. The description adds valuable context about scoping ('Scoped to your identifier') and the list-all behavior when key is omitted, which are not in annotations. No contradictions found.

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, followed by usage context and scoping/pairing information. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, scoping, and sibling relationships. It sufficiently explains the return behavior (value vs list of keys) without needing additional detail.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter description already states 'Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys)'. The tool description repeats this and adds a bit of context about the key being optional, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument).' It distinguishes itself by specifying the resource (saved memory) and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools (remember/forget) while also noting it avoids re-deriving context.

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 provides clear usage context: use it to look up previously stored context without re-deriving it. It explicitly pairs with remember and forget, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it beyond implying it is for saved memory. Still, the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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