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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: scoping to the agent's identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID) and the dual behavior of retrieving vs. listing all keys. It does not detail edge cases like missing key behavior, but annotations cover 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: function, use case, scoping, and relationship to sibling tools. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple (1 optional parameter, no output schema). The description sufficiently covers behavior, scoping, and usage. While the exact return format is not specified, for a memory retrieval tool it is implicitly whatever was saved, and the list behavior is mentioned. Overall adequate and complete.

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 the key parameter clearly described as 'omit to list all keys'. The description reinforces this behavior and adds concrete examples of typical key values (target ticker, address, research notes), providing 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's function: retrieve a previously saved value or list all saved keys. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (saved memory via remember). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing 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?

It provides explicit context: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier — the user's target ticker, an address, prior research notes — without re-deriving it from scratch.' It also notes the alternative of omitting the key to list all keys and mentions pairing with remember (save) and forget (delete).

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