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

There are no annotations, so the description is the only safety/behavior signal. 'Roll up' strongly implies a non-mutating aggregation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, required permissions, freshness, or pagination; the tool name 'view' helps but is not a substitute for annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the action, data sources, and scope are all present and front-loaded. Nothing in the description is redundant with the input schema.

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 a rich output schema, the description says enough about what the caller gets (aggregation of four data categories) to invoke it correctly. It omits deeper selection guidance, but that is already scored under usage guidelines.

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 slug parameter is already fully documented as a wiki topic slug or ontology entity slug. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that the operation is scoped to a single entity.

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 uses a concrete action ('Roll up') and names the exact resource types included (wiki, memories, graph neighbors, work) plus the entity scope. It conveys a broad aggregated entity view, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like memory_recall or memory_assemble_context.

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 'for one entity' implies the intended use case: get an aggregated view of a single entity's related data. However, it never describes when to prefer this over the many memory-looking siblings, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond having a slug.

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