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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this while adding important nuance: semantic similarity reflects aboutness, not agreement, and the server never asserts conflicts. This helps prevent misinterpretation of returned candidates.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core behavior and then adding interpretative guidance. A small amount of redundancy exists in restating read-only behavior already covered by annotations, but every sentence adds value.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics, ranking behavior, and result contents (domain and semantic_distance). It does not specify the ordering direction of semantic_distance, which is a minor gap, but overall an agent has enough to invoke and interpret results.

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 compensates by explaining that 'id' is a memory ID and 'limit' controls the maximum number of candidates (default 5). It could specify constraints or types more precisely, but the core meaning of both parameters is clear.

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 clearly states the tool returns semantically similar candidates for a given memory ID, ranked by semantic_distance, and explicitly contrasts with connection creation via 'Read-only — never creates connections.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'why_connected.'

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 description gives clear usage context: use it to surface candidates for review of agreement or contradiction, not just for connect opportunities. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use them, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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