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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the org binding, required ``memory:read`` permission, share/scope reach, trust labelling for unattended agents, read-only nature, and how superseded records surface (``retired_at``/``replacement_id``). It also explains that ``missing`` deliberately merges several failure causes, which prevents the agent misreading the response.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and tightly written, with each sentence adding distinct information. It is dense to the point of being slightly hard to parse on first read (stacked clauses about scope reach and trust labelling), which keeps it out of the top band.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema present, this covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, permissions, id provenance, the shape of ``records``/``missing``, and stale-record handling. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the parameter description already covers the 25-item cap and the source scan, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by telling the agent which id types are NOT valid inputs here, which is genuine semantic guidance beyond 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 verb and resource ("Full memory records by id") and immediately positions it relative to the sibling it complements ("the second step after a summary recall"). An agent can distinguish this from memory_recall without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the precondition (ids obtained from a memory_recall summary scan) and the exclusions ("Ids of skills, playbooks and work come from their own tools, not this one"). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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