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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive; description adds scoping by identifier, persistence differences for authenticated vs. anonymous users (24 hours), and pairing with recall/forget. No contradiction with 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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no fluff: purpose, usage context, and behavioral details are all present and relevant.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 required string params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, scope, persistence, and related tools, leaving no gaps for an agent.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, but the description adds naming conventions (e.g., 'subject_property', 'target_ticker') and clarifies that value is free-text, which enhances understanding beyond 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?

Clear verb ('save') and resource ('data the agent will need to reuse later'), with specific examples (ticker, address, preference) that distinguish it from sibling tools recall and forget, which are explicitly mentioned.

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?

States when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and why ('so you don't have to look it up again'). Mentions pairing with recall and forget, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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