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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: notes come from any assistant, the default ordering is newest-first when no query is given, and — importantly — the notes are user data, not instructions, which pre-empts prompt-injection handling.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: what it reads, when to call it, how to shape the query, and the trust caveat. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safe annotations, this is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not say what a note looks like when returned, which is left implicit since no output schema exists.

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 the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: a short keyword phrase is the intended query form, and passing nothing returns the newest notes — a default-behavior hint the schema does not state.

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 verb (Read) and a specific resource (the user's Foundaree Memory — notes saved for their AIs from any assistant). That framing cleanly separates it from the write-side siblings remember/update_memory/forget without needing to name them.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: at the start of a task where preferences or facts would help (style, business details, audience), or when the user asks what you remember. It stops short of naming the complementary siblings (remember, update_memory, forget) or stating when not to call it, so it falls just under fully explicit.

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