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

Annotations already carry the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety profile. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that only published text is returned, that links and attribution are preserved, and – most notably – that related demos are not executed, a genuine side-effect clarification for a memo 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 tightly packed sentences, each earning its place: the action, the output characteristics, and the demo exclusion. The primary action is front-loaded, with no filler and no repetition of annotation content.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (full published text with links and attribution), how to invoke it (by slug), and what it won't do (run demos), with annotations covering safety. The main gap is the absence of error or not-found behavior for an invalid or unpublished slug.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-documentation burden and supplies only 'by slug,' confirming that slug is the memo identifier. This covers the core meaning of the single parameter, but it doesn't describe slug format, how to obtain valid slugs, or the maxLength constraint already encoded in the schema.

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 a specific action ('Read the full published text of a memo by slug') with a clear verb and resource. The 'published text' qualifier and the resource noun 'memo' distinguish it from siblings like list_memos, read_content, and read_memory without opening any schema.

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?

Conveys clear usage context: use it to retrieve a published memo's full text by slug. The exclusion 'Does not execute related demos' signals a when-not, but no sibling alternative is named for the demo-execution case, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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