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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Open ... in full' usefully signals a complete-record read rather than a summary, but nothing is said about missing-id behavior, permissions, or what an 'event' contains.

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?

One short sentence with the key modifier ('in full') up front and zero filler. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup, though it is terse to the point of under-specification.

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 trivial single-id read with no output schema, the description covers the core intent (retrieve the full event by id). It leaves gaps on what distinguishes 'an event' from other memory artifacts and on failure behavior for unknown ids.

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?

Single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. 'by id' tells the agent the argument identifies a specific event, but gives no format, source, or provenance hint (e.g. where ids come from).

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+resource ('Open one memory event') and adds scope with 'in full by id', which distinguishes it from listing-style siblings like memory_search and memory_dig that presumably return summaries. Differentiation is implied rather than explicit, so it stops short of 5.

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?

'by id' and 'in full' imply this is the follow-up call after a search that returned ids, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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