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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds behavioral context beyond those: key-value scoping by identifier, persistence semantics (authenticated vs anonymous sessions), and retention duration (24 hours). This is useful context that isn't in annotations and helps the agent understand side effects.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries useful information: what to save, when to use it, storage mechanics, and pairing with recall/forget. No fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with rich schema descriptions and useful annotations, the description covers the necessary context: purpose, usage timing, storage scope, persistence, and sibling tools. There's no output schema needed, and the description fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 well-described key and value parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantic guidance by illustrating what kinds of data to store (resolved ticker, target address, user preference, research subject) and notes that the key-value pair is scoped by the agent's identifier, which enriches understanding of how the parameters relate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' and clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming recall and forget as complementary tools. It also provides concrete examples (resolved ticker, target address, user preference) that make the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when you discover something worth carrying forward') and contrasts it with alternatives by saying 'Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.' This gives the agent clear decision criteria for when to use remember versus related memory tools.

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