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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and the '[PUBLIC READ]' tag usefully discloses that this is a non-destructive, unauthenticated read. However, it says nothing about what a call actually returns, whether results are ranked/limited/paginated, or how allow_episode_audit changes the safety or volume profile — meaningful gaps for a query tool with zero 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the access level and the resource scope front-loaded before the constraint. Every phrase carries information.

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?

A 2-parameter read tool with a complete schema and no output schema is close to self-documenting, so this is nearly adequate. The missing piece is the query semantics themselves: the tool is called 'query' yet takes no query term or filter, and the description never clarifies that this returns a bucket rather than matching a predicate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the enum and the audit flag are already fully documented in the schema; the description only restates the bucket list. It adds no semantics for allow_episode_audit (e.g., why episode traces are normally withheld), which would have been genuinely additive. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Query) and resource (5 segregated memory type buckets) and enumerates the bucket values inline, so the agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent memory/knowledge siblings such as search_knowledge, get_knowledge_item, or get_kv_cache_item, so an agent still has to infer that this is the segmented-store reader.

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 'Prohibits accidental type mixing' implies the usage context (you must commit to one bucket rather than a broad search), which is a useful selection hint versus a generic search tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, so routing between this and the knowledge/KV siblings is left to inference.

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