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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains scoping ('scoped by your identifier') and persistence semantics ('persistent memory' vs 'anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours'). These details are not covered by idempotentHint or destructiveHint and meaningfully inform the agent about side effects and storage duration.

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 long, each earning its place: action, usage context, and persistence details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant phrasing, making it concise and well-structured.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, persistence, scoping, and complementary tools. Annotations already provide idempotence/destruction hints. No additional behavioral information is needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% for both key and value parameters, so the schema fully documents them. The tool description mentions key-value pairs and gives examples of stored content ('resolved ticker, target address'), but this is illustrative rather than adding new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 function: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' – a specific verb ('save') and resource ('data'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'recall' for retrieval and 'forget' for deletion, making the purpose unique among similar memory tools.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward... so you don't have to look it up again.' It also names complementary tools (recall, forget). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, though the phrase 'worth carrying forward' implies the condition.

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