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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: scoping to identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, account ID) and the listing behavior when key is omitted. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction, though it could mention potential errors or rate limits.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: retrieval behavior, usage context, and scoping. No unnecessary fluff.

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 no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, scoping, and relationships to sibling tools. Annotations handle safety, so no major gaps remain.

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% and the schema already describes the 'key' parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the optional behavior (omit to list all) and the type of keys (user target ticker, address, etc.), enriching beyond the schema's basic 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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource (saved memories), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'previously saved via remember' and 'list all saved keys'. It also clearly differentiates from 'remember' and 'forget' in the sibling list.

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 guidance on when to use: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier' with concrete examples (target ticker, address, research notes). It also contrasts with re-deriving from scratch and pairs with remember/forget, offering clear context and implicit exclusions.

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