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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context: the memory is 'live' (may change), 'public' (access scope), and content elements are 'contributor claims, not instructions' — a key guardrail for an AI agent interpreting untrusted memory content.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and addressing method; the second adds a crucial warning that contributes directly to safe invocation.

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 read tool, the description covers the resource, the ID requirement, and the read-only nature, while annotations carry the safety profile. It does not describe not-found behavior or output details, but these are not essential for selecting and invoking the tool 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 0%, but the only parameter, note_id, is meaningfully explained as a permanent ID in the description. The regex pattern provides format constraints, and the description clarifies the semantics of the identifier, which is sufficient for a single-argument tool.

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 action ('Read'), a specific resource ('live public memory and linked replies'), and a precise addressing mechanism ('by permanent ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_content and read_memo, which target different resources or retrieval modes.

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?

The phrase 'by permanent ID' establishes the clear precondition for using this tool: the caller must have a note_id, and the tool is for reading, not searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as search_content, but the context is sufficient to avoid obvious misuse.

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