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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context about scoping to identifier and the remember/forget lifecycle. It doesn't describe edge cases like missing keys, but the annotation coverage makes this sufficient.

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, each earning its place: function, use case, and scope/pairing. No fluff or redundancy, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, scope, and relationships in a compact space. No missing critical information.

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?

The schema already documents the 'key' parameter with full coverage, and the description enriches it by providing concrete examples (ticker, address, research notes) and clarifying the omit-to-list behavior. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a value saved via 'remember' or lists all keys, using explicit verbs. It distinguishes from siblings by naming 'remember' and 'forget' as complementary actions, making its role 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?

It provides a clear 'when to use' by advising to look up previously stored context without re-deriving, and names 'remember' as the saving counterpart. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the pairing with siblings and contextual examples give strong guidance.

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