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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and safe behavior. The description adds valuable context about the tool's scope ('Scoped to your identifier') and the two operational modes (retrieve vs. list all). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not detail return format or error conditions.

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?

Four concise sentences cover purpose, usage, scoping, and pairing with siblings. Each sentence delivers new information without redundancy. The examples are helpful, though the description could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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 and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the two output behaviors, usage context, and data isolation. It does not describe the return format, but given the simplicity and presence of annotations, this is a minor gap.

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%, so parameters are fully documented there. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that omitting the key triggers listing behavior and that the key refers to a previously saved memory. This enriches the schema's simple 'key' description.

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 two modes: retrieving a saved value and listing all keys. It explicitly names the related operations ('remember' and 'forget'), distinguishing it from siblings. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'saved memory keys/values' make the 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier' with concrete examples. It also implicitly states when not to use it by mentioning alternatives ('Pair with remember to save, forget to delete'). This clearly directs the agent to the correct sibling for write/delete operations.

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