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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about scoping ('Scoped to your identifier') and the two modes (retrieve one or list all), going beyond the annotations.

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 serves a purpose: behavior, usage context, and scoping/alternatives. No waste.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, usage, scoping, and return modes. It is complete without being verbose.

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 covers the sole parameter fully ('Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys)'). The description reinforces this but does not add significant new parameter-level detail beyond examples of key content, so baseline 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 dual purpose: 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument).' It uses specific verbs ('retrieve', 'list') and identifies the resource (saved memory), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier' with examples (target ticker, address, research notes) and pairs with 'remember to save, forget to delete.' This clearly communicates when to use recall versus alternatives.

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