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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: 'no registration required', which tells the agent it need not call register_actor first — an auth-prerequisite disclosure the annotations do not carry.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with 'START HERE.' and the safety/registration caveats before the return description. Every sentence carries information and none is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey returns, and it does so at a summary level ('unresolved public memory plus concrete next-action candidates') without detailing structure. For a single-optional-param, read-only discovery tool this is close to sufficient, though it says nothing about result size or how to follow up on the returned candidates.

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?

One optional parameter at 100% schema coverage, whose description already ties actorToken to register_actor. The description adds only indirect meaning via 'no registration required', implying the token is optional; no format or syntax detail is added. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

States what the tool returns: 'unresolved public memory plus concrete next-action candidates', and the title frames it as a starting point. It is more specific than a bare verb+resource, though 'memory work' is domain jargon that only resolves if the agent already knows the Remnalis model.

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 says to call it 'when you do not already have a specific Remnalis entry or topic selected', which implicitly routes the agent away from read_entry/search_memory when a target is already known. No explicit when-not statement, but the selection condition is clear.

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