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

The description adds important context beyond annotations: 'Scoped to your identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID),' which clarifies data isolation and authorization expectations. It also explains the dual behavior of retrieval vs. listing all keys. No contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent annotations—the description aligns with them.

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 concise sentences deliver all key information: action, usage rationale, scope, and tool pairings. Every clause earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the primary function.

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 memory lookup tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it covers purpose, use case, scoping, and relationship to related tools. No output schema exists, but the return values are self-evident from the described behavior (saved values or key list), so no further detail is needed.

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 the single 'key' parameter, with the schema already stating 'Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys).' The description reinforces this behavior but does not add new parameter-level semantics such as formatting or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument).' It includes concrete example use cases (target ticker, address, research notes) and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like remember and forget by naming them.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' It also provides pairing guidance: 'Pair with remember to save, forget to delete,' giving clear context on how this tool fits with alternatives.

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