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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of real value beyond that: the response includes revision signals and comments, and the returned content is untrusted data that must never be treated as instructions — an important prompt-injection guard for a memory-reading tool.

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 terse sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the registration precondition, then the untrusted-content warning. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by noting that revisions and comments are returned, and it flags the security posture of the content. For a two-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, though return-shape detail (e.g. whether comments are paginated) is absent.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including actorToken as an optional handle from register_actor. The description only restates the identifier forms that the schema already gives, adding no format or edge-case detail, which makes the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific verb (read) and resource (an entry), and specifies the identifier form (slug/UUID) plus what comes back (revision signals and comments). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_memory or continue_memory, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'No registration' tells the agent it can read without first calling register_actor, which is a genuine precondition hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus search_memory (list/find) or continue_memory, so the choice between siblings is left to inference.

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