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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting scoping to the user's identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID) and the ability to list all keys when the key argument is omitted. This enriches the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value. No redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, scoping, and sibling relationships.

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 all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, scoping, and pairing with remember/forget. It omits the exact return format, but for a memory retrieval tool this is adequately inferred from the stated behavior.

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% with a clear description of the single 'key' parameter. The tool description adds meaning by giving concrete examples of key content (user's target ticker, address, research notes) and clarifying that keys are saved via remember, which goes beyond the schema's basic 'Memory key to retrieve'.

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 two main actions: retrieving a saved value and listing all keys, using specific verbs and a clear resource (previously saved memory). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly pairing with remember and forget, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to look up context stored earlier (ticker, address, research notes) without re-deriving it. It also names alternatives (remember to save, forget to delete), giving clear context on when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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