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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that retrieval is scoped to the agent's identifier and lists examples of stored data. This provides context beyond annotations, though it could mention what happens if a key is missing.

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, front-loading the action and purpose. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is ideal for quick parsing.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, scope, and pairing. It does not explain return format for missing keys, but the overall completeness is high 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter. The description echoes the schema's behavior (omit key to list all) but adds examples. Since schema already documents the parameter and its behavior, the description adds marginal but non-essential value.

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 saved keys. It specifies the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'memory', distinguishing between two modes (single key vs. list all). Siblings like 'remember' and 'forget' are mentioned, making differentiation easy.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: to look up context stored earlier without re-deriving it. It also mentions scope (per identifier) and pairs with 'remember' and 'forget'. While it lacks explicit exclusions, the guidance is clear and sufficient for correct usage.

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