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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds functional behavior: retrieval vs. listing, and scoping. It does not contradict annotations. No additional details about error cases or rate limits, but annotations suffice for safety profile.

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 sentences, well-structured: function, use case, scoping, and pairing. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use, scope, and companion tools. No gaps.

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% (1 parameter with description 'Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys)'). The description repeats the omit-to-list behavior but adds no deeper semantic 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?

Description clearly defines the tool's action: retrieve a saved value by key, or list all keys if omitted. It specifies the verb (retrieve/list), resource (saved values/keys), and context (from remember). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remember and forget.

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?

Description states when to use: 'look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' It also mentions pairing with remember and forget, and scoping by identifier. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use.

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